DEVELOPMENTAL ASSETS AND SCHOOL CHOICE PERSISTENCE: 
A MIXED METHODOLOGY CASE STUDY 
OF AN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 
 By  Mary Lynn Mason   
   
 
 A DISSERTATION 
Submitted to 
Michigan State University 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements 
for the degree of   Educational PolicyŠDoctor of Philosophy  2015   ABSTRACT 
DEVELOPMENTAL ASSETS AND SCHOOL CHOICE PERSISTENCE: 
A MIXED METHODOLOGY CASE STUDY 
OF AN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 
By Mary Lynn Mason This mixed methodology case study sheds light 
on the reasons that some disadvantaged 
students beat the odds and succeed in school despite
 the obstacles they face. Federal education 
policy and that of many states encourage sc
hool choice as a means 
of improving the match 
between student and school, which is expected to result in greater student success. This study examines the relationship between Developmental Assets®
1Šspecific non-cognitive factorsŠand the school choice and one-year persistence of students in their chosen 9
th grade schools. The 40 developmental assets are derived from res
earch on positive youth development theory, an 
outgrowth of the bioecological systems theory of human development. 
Logistic regression is used to analyze the relationship between students™ developmental 
assetsŠtheir perceptions as measured by the 
Developmental Assets Profile surveyŠand their 
school choice and persistence. Linear regression analyzes the relationship between developmental assets and students™ 9
th grade GPAs. Analysis of interview data supplements and 
expands on the statistical analysis, independently identifying themes from the interview data. 
Overall, the results indicate a positive, signi
ficant influence of developmental assets on 
choice, persistence, and GPA. Results for different asset subsets are mixedŠwith some positive 

and some negative, some significant and some no
t. The results for choice and persistence also differ substantially in most ways. There is al
so a noteworthy difference in the influence of internal characteristics and external forces. Deve
lopmental assets appear to operate on grade 
                                                 1 Developmental Assets is a registered
 trademark of the Search Institute. 
point average in two ways: directly and independent of prior GPA, and indirectly through their influence on prior GPA.  The qualitative results overall support the importa
nce of developmental 
assets in positive outcomes for young people. The themes derived from
 the interviews relate closely to factors identified in positive youth development theory and in the developmental assets framework. 

Students™ perceived family s
upport, the match between the student and the school, and their 
relationships with peers and adults at school are key factors in school success. Also important is 
students™ ability to proactively work toward 
their goals, including seeking out, accessing, and 
using needed help.  This research suggests some areas where efforts by schools can make a positive 
difference. One is to recognize the importance of stable in-school relationships and to enhance opportunities and support for those relationships. Schools can also strive to create a culture where students feel nurtured, supported, and constructively challenged, to enhance non-cognitive skills as well as academic skills, and to pr
ovide opportunities and encouragement for student 
involvement in and contribution to the school 
and the community. Finally, schools can work to 
improve mutually supportive re
lationships with students™ homes and with community youth 
programs. But the cooperation of policymakers is
 crucial. Current school choice policy, in many 
instances, disrupts relationships between the school, school staff, students, and community.  
 
     
 
   
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
   
 
 Copyright by MARY LYNN MASON 
2015  v  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I dedicate this work
 to my husband, Jim Barton, whose understanding, support, and unending 
patience made it possible; to my mother, Blan
ch Mason, who has always believed in me and 
continues to demonstrate the value of uncondition
al parental support; and to my children, Sarah, 
Katherine, and Peter, and my grandchildren, Ne
ttie, Eldon, and those to come, who light up my 
life, give me faith in the futu
re and make it all worthwhile.   viACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
  Many people have helped and encouraged me in
 this latest leg of my life journey. First 
and foremost is my advisor and dissertation chair,
 David Arsen.  David has readily given of his time and shared his broad and varied knowledge 
and experience. He has kept me grounded and 
done his best to keep me focused and I am gr
ateful for his patience in guiding me through the 
steep learning curve of my dissertation 
Each of my committee members made a uni
que and valuable contribution to my 
development as a scholar. Rebecca Jacobsen has 
encouraged and challenged me from my first 
days in the program and is always ready with 
advice and support. Elizabeth Heilman taught me 
all I was able to absorb about qualitative research; her help in formulating a practical research 
plan was invaluable. Ken Frank challenged me wi
th questions that stretched my mind beyond my 
initial meager grasp of statistical methods and 
just assumed I could find my way through the fog.  
 Several of my fellow students also helped me with their expertise in statistics. Min Sun, 
in particular, gave generously of her time and a
dvice, even after she had moved on to the firealfl world. Others lent friendship, general support and encouragement over the years.  
 The extensive help of those 
at the school district where I conducted my research was 
invaluable as was the willingness of Peter Scal
es to answer questions
 about his work and developmental assets. And most especially, I 
appreciate the openness and candor with which the students I interviewed answered my ques
tions. I truly enjoyed the experience. Finally, Michael Sedlak, the educational policy program director, en
couraged me from 
the beginning to apply to the program and provided crucial support along the way. Without him, 
none of the rest would have been possible. viiTABLE OF CONTENTS 
 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................
... xi  LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................
 xiii 
 KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ xiv 

 Chapter One: Introduction and Definitions ................................................................................1 
 Definitions...................................................................................................................
...3  Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .....................................................................................5 
 Section 1: Youth Development Theory .........................................................................6 
  Human development theory ...............................................................................6 
  Resiliency ...........................................................................................................8 
  Positive youth development .............................................................................10 
   From risk and resilience to
 positive youth development .....................10 
   Defining positive youth development
 ...................................................12 
 Section 2: Developmental Strengths-
based Frameworks and Instruments ..................17 
  Definition and organization ΠFrameworks .....................................................19 
   The 5 Cs ...............................................................................................21 
   National Research Council ..................................................................22 
   40 Developmental Assets
 .....................................................................26 
   Other strengths-based frameworks ......................................................30 
  Measurement ΠInstruments .............................................................................30 
Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors and the  Developmental Assets Profile
 ..............................................................31 
 Other instruments
.................................................................................32  Section 3: Relationship of Devel
opmental Factors and School Success .....................35 
  Measures of school success .............................................................................35 

  Developmental factors and school success ......................................................36 
 Section 4: Statement of the Problem ............................................................................40 
  Research questions ...........................................................................................40 
  Hypotheses .......................................................................................................41 
 Chapter Three: Methods and Methodology .............................................................................42 
 Section 1: Introduction and Overview .........................................................................42 
  Definitions........................................................................................................42 
  Study context ...................................................................................................43 
viii   Section 2: Quantitative Methods ..................................................................................45 
  Participants .......................................................................................................45 
  Measures ..........................................................................................................45 
    Data sources .......................................................................................45 
   Data collection procedures ..................................................................
47    Reliability and validity .........................................................................
47   Data analysis ....................................................................................................52 
   Descriptive statistics ............................................................................52 
   Choice and persistence: logistic regression ........................................53 
   GPA: linear regression ........................................................................56 
 Section 3: Qualitative Methods ....................................................................................57 
  Participants .......................................................................................................57 
  Measures ..........................................................................................................58 
   Data sources and data collection procedures .....................................58 
   Reliability and validity
 .........................................................................59 
  Data analysis ....................................................................................................60 
 Section 4: Limitations ..................................................................................................62 
 Chapter Four: Quantitative Results ..........................................................................................63
  Section 1: Introduction and Overview .........................................................................63 
 Section 2: Descri
ptive Statistics ...................................................................................64   Student characteris
tics and DAP scores ...........................................................64 
  Distribution of DAP sc
ores among participants ..............................................67 
  Relationships among asset aggregat
e, category, and context scores ...............72
 Section 3: The Relationship between De
velopmental Assets and School Choice .......75 
  Control variables ..............................................................................................79 
  Aggregate DAP asset scores ............................................................................79 
  Asset category scores .......................................................................................80 
  Asset context scores .........................................................................................81 
Section 4: The Relationship between Developmental Assets and  
School Persistence .......................................................................................................84 
  Control variables ..............................................................................................88 
  Aggregate DAP asset scores ............................................................................88 
  Asset category scores .......................................................................................89 
  Asset context scores .........................................................................................90 
  Leavers and stayers ..........................................................................................90 
Section 5: The Relationship between Developmental Assets and Grade 
 Point Average..............................................................................................................94  Causal Inference ...............................................................................................99 
ixSection 6: Summary of Quantitative Results .............................................................102 
 Chapter Five: Qualitative Results ..........................................................................................104
  Section 1: Introduction and Overview .......................................................................104 
 Section 2: The Students and their Schools .................................................................105 
  High schools: Stayers and leavers ..................................................................106 
   Early College High School ................................................................106 
   Technology High School ....................................................................106 
   Management and Business High School ............................................106 
   Horizons High School ........................................................................
107   DAP scores.....................................................................................................107 
  Student profiles ..............................................................................................109 
   The fistayersfl
 .....................................................................................110 
   The fileaversfl
.....................................................................................112  Section 3: The Interviews ..........................................................................................116 
  The themes .....................................................................................................116 
  Students™ perceptions of their experience ......................................................120 
   Family experience: fiThey believe in me.fl
 ........................................121 
    Messages about education .....................................................123 
    Help and support....................................................................126    Sense of agency: fiI make it happen.fl ...............................................128 
    Asking for, accessing, and accepting help
 .............................129 
    Giving help .............................................................................134 
    Taking responsibility ..............................................................137 
   School experience: fiI found my place.fl  ...........................................139 
    Relationships within the school: teachers, administrators,     friends and other peers
 ..........................................................140 
    Experience of the school and school connection to goals .....144 
   Self-efficacy: fiI believe I can do it.fl
 .................................................151 
    Strengths, weaknesses, student identity
 .................................151 
    Goals ......................................................................................153 
 Section 4: Interview Themes and th
e Developmental Assets Framework ................155 
  Family ............................................................................................................158 
  School ............................................................................................................159 
 Section 5: Summary of Qualitative Results ...............................................................161 
 Chapter Six: Discussion .......................................................................................................
..163  The Role of Specific Developmenta
l Factors in Different Outcomes .......................164 
 The Role of the Family in Youth Development .........................................................166 
 Developmental Factors and GPA ...............................................................................166 
x Implications for Policy and Pr
actice: What can Schools Do? ...................................168 
  Recognize the importance of relationships ....................................................169 
  Intervene in the pr
ocess of development .......................................................172 
 Conclusion .................................................................................................................17
4  APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................
...176  APPENDIX A: 40 Developmental Assets and Categories ........................................177 
 APPENDIX B: Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) Survey ..................................179 
 APPENDIX C: Interview Protocol ............................................................................182 
 APPENDIX D: Parent/Student Consent/Assent Form English and Spanish .............185 
 APPENDIX E: Consent Request
 Letter English and Spanish ...................................192 
 APPENDIX F: Missi
ng DAP Survey Scores.............................................................195  APPENDIX G: DAP Score Distribution Histograms ................................................203 
 APPENDIX H: Expanded Student Profiles ...............................................................209 

  REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................
..222    xiLIST OF TABLES  Table 1. Selected Developmental Strengths-based Frameworks .............................................20 
 Table 2. Developmental Asset Aggreg
ates, Categories, and Contexts ....................................43 
 Table 3. Variables in the Logistic Regression Models ............................................................55 
 Table 4. Total Asset Levels of Students Interviewed ..............................................................58 
 Table 5. Student Characteristics ..............................................................................................
65  Table 6. Student Characteristics by DAP Completion       
   for Spring 2012 8th Grade Students  ......................................................................................66 
 Table 7. Student Characteristics by DAP Completion     for Fall 2012 9th Grade Students ...........................................................................................68 
 Table 8. Mean DAP Scores of Students with Complete Scores ..............................................69 
 Table 9. Mean DAP Scores of Students by Characteristics     of Students with Complete Scores ........................................................................................71 

 Table 10. Correlation of Scores in 8 DAP Categories and Aggregated Totals ........................73 
 Table 11. Correlation of Scores in 5 DAP Contexts and Aggregated Totals ..........................74 
 Table 12. Likelihood of Active vs. Passive
 School Choice: DAP Aggregates ........................77 
 Table 13. Likelihood of Active vs. Passive Scho
ol Choice: DAP Categories and Contexts ...78 
 Table 14. Likelihood of One-year School Persistence: DAP Aggregates ...............................86 
 Table 15. Likelihood of One-year School Persistence: DAP Categories and Contexts ..........87 
 Table 16. Characteristics of Stayers and Leavers ....................................................................92 
 Table 17. Determinants of 9
th Grade GPA: DAP Aggregate Scores .......................................95 
 xiiTable 18. Determinants of 9
th Grade GPA: DAP Categories and Contexts ............................96 
 Table 19. Interviewed Students: Characteristics ....................................................................105 
 Table 20. Interviewed Students: DAP Asset Scores ..............................................................108 
 Table 21. Interviewed Students: Family Status .....................................................................110 
 Table 22. Inductively Developed Main Topics, Themes, and Elements ...............................118 
 Table 23. Relationship between Developmental Asset  
    Contexts and Interview Themes.........................................................................................155 
 Table 24. Comparison of Actual and Imputed DAP Scores ..................................................198 
 Table 25. Likelihood of Active vs. Passive School Choice:  
    Aggregate DAP Scores Actual and Imputed .....................................................................199 
 Table 26. Likelihood of Active vs. Passive School Choice: 
    DAP Score Categories and Contexts Actual and Imputed .................................................200 
 Table 27. Likelihood of One-year School Persistence:      Aggregate DAP Scores Actual and Imputed .....................................................................201 
 
Table 28. Likelihood of One-year School Persistence:      DAP Score Categories and Contexts Actual and Imputed .................................................202 
   xiiiLIST OF FIGURES 
 Figure 1. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................16 
 Figure 2. Logistic Regression Models: Choice and Persistence ..............................................54 
 Figure 3. Linear Regression Model: GPA ...............................................................................56 
 Figure 4. Preliminary Organization 
of the Interview Responses ...........................................117 
 Figure 5. Themes in Students™ Perceptions
 of Key Influences in School Choice 
    and Persistence: Interview Themes and Prior Theory .......................................................157 
 Figure 6. 40 Developmental 
Assets and Categories ..............................................................178 
 Figure 7. Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) Survey ........................................................180 
 Figure 8. DAP Aggregate Score Distributions ......................................................................204 
 Figure 9. DAP External Category Score Distributions ..........................................................205 
 Figure 10. DAP Internal Category Score Distributions .........................................................206 
 Figure 11. DAP Context Score Distributions ........................................................................207 
   xivKEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
2  A&B    Profiles of Student Life
: Attitudes and Behaviors Survey 
 DA    Developmental Assets® 
 DAP    Developmental Assets Profile 
 ECHS    Early College High School 
 FRPL    Free and reduced price lunch 
 GPA    Grade point average 
 HHS    Horizons High School 
 LEP    Limited English proficient 
 MBHS    Management and Business High School 
 PYD    Positive youth development 
 
SPED    Special education 
 TAG    Talented and gifted 
 Tech    Technology High School 
                                                      2 Additional definitions specific to the data analysis are found in Chapter 3: Methods and Methodology. 
1Chapter One: Introduction and Definitions 
Most education research treats economi
cally disadvantaged youth as a single, homogenous, demographic group. Those who beat 
the odds and succeed are exceptions whose 
success is unexplained by that research and, particularly, in the minds of policy makers. 
However, youth development research and my 
experience say that there are meaningful 
differences (in resilience) and that Developmental Assets®
3 may provide a useful measure of 
those differences. (See Appendix A for a list of th
e Developmental Assets.) Substantial literature 
in the field of youth development, family 
studies, psychology, and developmental science 
examines differences in resiliency and developm
ental assets among disadvantaged children and 
their relationship to school
 success and adult thriving.  The purpose of this study is (1) to better understand why some disadvantaged students beat the odds by analyzing which students end up actively choosing schools and how they persist in those schools, and (2) to insert a developmental perspective into the choice debate about schools that fiworkfl for economically disadvantaged youth. This is a mixed methodology case study. It seek
s to shed light on the reasons that some 
students beat the odds by examining the relati
onship between developmental assetsŠspecific non-cognitive factorsŠas measured by the Developm
ental Assets Profile survey (DAP), and the school choice and one-year persistence of students in the schools they choose in the 9th grade. (See Appendix B for the DAP survey.) School choice is measured at the beginning of the 9
th grade year. School persistence is measured betw
een two transition points: the beginning of the 
9th grade year, and the beginning of the 10th grade year. School choice and persistence are 
                                                 3 Developmental Assets is a registered
 trademark of the Search Institute and refers to a specific set of 40 
developmental assets developed by the Search Institute. In this paper, that term refers only to those 40 assets. The 

terms developmental factors and strengths describe a broa
d range of factors generally, sometimes described in the 
literature as noncognitive skills or factors. 
2hypothesized to vary based on students™ levels of developmental assets (DA). Three groups of 
students are compared: (a) active choosers who pe
rsist (stay) in their chosen school through the beginning of the 10th grade year (b) active choos
ers who leave their chosen school during that time, and (c) passive choosers (those who attend 9
th grade in their assigned school). The research 
studies the influence of aggregate measures of assets as well as
 the influence of the categories and contexts made up of differe
nt combinations of assets. Students are particularly vulne
rable to school failure in the transition to high school 
during the 9th grade year (Farrington et al., 2012).
 Those who successfully complete 9
th grade are much more likely to go on to graduate from hi
gh school. Federal education policy (especially the No Child Left Behind Act and the Race to the Top 
program), and that of many states, encourages 
school choice as a means of improving the match 
between student and school, which is expected to result in greater student su
ccess. This study posits both th
e active choice of a school and 
persistence in that school for the full 9th grade year to the beginning of the 10th grade as important in a successful 9
th grade transition, leading to high school graduation. In other words, the student factors related to active school choice and staying in that school for one year may be 
predictors of school success. Moreover, if there 
are ways to increase those student factors, or developmental assets, then it may be po
ssible to improve student success.   The case study school district was chosen for several reasons. First, it is a very large urban public school district with a high proportion of economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minority, and limited English proficient 
(LEP) students, characteristics commonly 
recognized as obstacles to school success.  Second, all 8th grade students have a number of 
district-wide school choices as they make th
e crucial transition to high school for the 9th grade. Third, as part of its educational program, the district administ
ered the DAP survey to all 8
th 3graders in the spring of 2012, just before the beginning of the study period. The combination of 
large numbers of disadvantaged students, sc
hool choices at the crucial transition to 9
th grade, and the broad administration of the surv
ey instrument previously chosen
 for this research made this 
district well suited for exploring the research questions. The description of the study begins, in Chapter Two, with a review of the research 
literature that provides the theoretical background for the research hypotheses and questions as well as background for the analyses. It traces the 
evolution of positive youth development theory 
and related concepts from the broader theory of human development. Frameworks that define 
and organize the developmenta
l factors and the instruments that measure them are also 
discussed.   Chapter Three describes the met
hods and methodology in the design of both the 
quantitative and qualitative components of the st
udy. Results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses are detailed in Chapters Four and 
Five, respectively. Finally Chapter Six reviews 
significant findings and situates the work in relationship to existing literature and current theory. 
Concluding comments briefly consider some implications of the developmental perspective for 
both educational policy and school practice. Definitions 1. Developmental Assets
 (DA): the 40 fipositive experiences and qualities identified by Search Institute as being essential to healthy psychological and social development in 
childhood and adolescencefl (Search Institute, 2005, p. 2). Appendix A is a list of the 40 
assets. 

2. Developmental Assets Profile (DAP): a su
rvey developed by the Search Institute to provide a self-reported student profile of eight categories of developmental assets and 
five contexts in which they function. Appendix B is the DAP survey.    43. Student persistence: whether a student stays in his or her initial 9th grade school during the study period. 
4. Stayer: a student who persists in his or her initial 9
th grade school during the study period. 
5. Leaver: a student who leaves his or her initial 9th grade school during the study period. 6. Active chooser: a student who attends a school other than his or her assigned school. 7. Passive chooser: a student who attends his or her assigned school. 8. Study period: the beginning of the students™ 9th grade yearŠfall 2012Šthrough the beginning of their 10
th grade yearŠfall 2013. 
    5Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 
Given that socioeconomic stat
us or other markers of di
sadvantage are not reliable predictors of academic success or failure for la
rge numbers of youth, research tells us that 
individual patterns of risk and developmental factors may be much
 more relevant to determining 
who is truly at risk of school failure. More importa
nt, they can give us clues to what we might do 
to help those children, and all children, overcome obstacles an
d increase their chances of 
succeeding in school and thriving. 
Youth can overcome the circumstances of 
economically disadvantaged neighborhoods if 
the adults in those communitiesŠparents, t
eachers, religious leaders, neighborsŠshare 
norms and values about what they want yout
h to believe and do and about how adults should help youth live out those expectations (Connell, Spencer, & Aber, 1994).  (Lerner, 2006; Scales & Leffert, 2004, p. 12). 
This review of the literature begins by describing the theoretical basis for the researchŠ
youth development theory and its roots in human 
development theory and resiliency, as well as its more focused emphasis on young people with positive youth development theory (PYD). 

Section 2 describes several developmental stre
ngths-based frameworks and instruments that 
define, organize, and measure various devel
opmental factors. The relationship between 
developmental factors and school success is discu
ssed in Section 3. Finally, Section 4 describes 
the research problem and 
the research questions and hypotheses for this study.   6Section 1: Youth Development Theory Though almost universally accepted as a ke
y force in out-of-school youth programs, 
youth development theory plays a mi
nor role, if any, in schools. It is especially absent at the education policy level. Youth development theory is based in the broader theory of human 
development in the discipline of developmen
tal psychology, now developmental science. It 
encompasses the concept of resi
lience and the theory of positive youth development, including 
developmental factors, also 
called strengths or assets. Human development theory provides the co
mmon, overarching frame for the others. 
Youth development theory explains the natura
l process of development in young people while 
positive youth development (PYD) theory posits action to influence that development in ways 

that are conducive to healthy (positive) de
velopment (Benson, Scales, Hamilton, & Sesma Jr, 
2006). Resiliency is both a forerunner and companion of PYD theory.  
The variety and complexity of the influences
 on individual human development make it 
virtually impossible to sort out the interactions 
and make causal inferences. Thus research results 
are almost universally correlationa
l, not causal. Researchers have
 developed theories, based in observation, to identify factors they expect to relate to positive development. Over many years, 
with large numbers of diverse subjects, a
nd in many contexts, strong correlations have 
consistently been found between certain factors and thriving and successful youth and adults. Though there is yet no definitive study, the shee
r volume of evidence over time is compelling.  
Human development theory. Human development theory covers growth and 
development not just in the time period leading up
 to adulthood, but across the entire life span. This has not always been the case. Earlier theories viewed human development as primarily 
biological, and later added environment as a se
parate influence. Developmental change was 7considered to slow dramatically after the first fi
ve years of life and to be essentially complete before early adulthood. While research continues to support the great importance of the early 
years of life, recent neurological 
research shows that the brain has the capacity to grow and 
change even into old age. At the same time, 
research in developmental science shows that 
development is much more complex than the 
simple biology-environment (nature-nurture) 
relationship.  Most influential in current human devel
opment theory is Urie Bronfenbrenner™s 
bioecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenne
r, 1979, 2005c). In the bioecological theory, development is contextual and ongoing. In other 
words, biology and the environment interact 
dynamically throughout the life course, causing conti
nual change in the individual. Because each person™s biology and experience differ from all ot
hers, each is unique and continually evolving. Bronfenbrenner describes a hierarchy of systems and subsystems th
at impact development, from 
the immediate family and school environment to 
the larger social and cultural and even global systems in which the person lives. Because human 
beings also impact their environment, which 
then impacts their development in a continuing 
interactive cycle, fihuman beings are active 
producers of their own developmentfl 
(Bronfenbrenner, 2005c, p. xxvii).  Bronfenbrenner developed and refined his ecological systems theory over the course of 
his long career in developmental psychologyŠfrom 
his doctoral dissertation in 1942 to his last writings in 2005, the year of his death. The theory and its hypotheses grew out of existing research and the logical extensions of that res
earch. It was first described comprehensively in 
1979 (Bronfenbrenner). In later revisions of the theory, he relied on new experimental evidence 
from his work and that of others, as evidenced 
by a series of essays over more than 60 years (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 2005b).  8Youth development theory is an extension of
 bioecological systems theory. The key point 
in both is the primacy of the continual, dyna
mic interaction between the person and the many 
facets of his or her environment. The importance 
of this person-context interaction is emphasized 
consistently by scholars in the field (e.g., Lerner, 2006). Key to understanding the implications 
of youth development theory for schools is 
that, because of individual fibioecologicalfl 
differences, no two students experience the same
 objective factor in the same way. Thus, 
contrary to predictions based on socioeconomic
 status, for example, some students from 
impoverished homes will succeed in school while ot
hers fail, and some st
udents from affluent 
homes will fail in school while others succeed. 
In addition, no two students will necessarily 
respond in the same way to the same fitreat
mentfl in a school program or intervention. 
Resiliency. Schools or students that fibeat the oddsfl are commonly held up as examples 
of what is possible for everyone. The odds are usually risk factors, the most common of which is 
poverty but also include dysfunctional homes, violence, disabili
ty, immigrant status, language 
issues, and others. Those individuals who beat the odds are said to be resilientŠthey have the ability to overcome obstacles and succeed.  
By definition, then, resilience encompasses the variety of factors that differentiate among 
those at-risk youth who beat the odds and their less successful peers. It is dynamic, not a static 
characteristic. Resilience is the outcome of the eff
ects of various protective factors, both internal and external, on risk factors. Protective factors act fias moderators between
 risk and resiliencefl (Vargas, 2010, p. 28). Resilience, as a component of  human development, is a product of the 
interaction between the i
ndividual and the various contexts of his or her life (Luthar, Cicchetti, & 
Becker, 2000). 9Pioneers of the concept of resilience tried to understand the vulnerability of children living with adversity. In their seminal study, Wern
er and Smith (1998) studied all of the children 
(approximately 700) on the island of Kauai in a 
two-decade longitudinal study from the prenatal 
period in 1954 through the age of 18. They appl
ied multiple regression analysis on comparison 
groups to analyze data across time from a se
ries of physical assessments, cognitive and 
noncognitive tests, and interviews and surveys of the children, their parents, and other significant adults. The researchers found not only vulnerability 
but also what we now call resilience, with significant effects of a numb
er of factors on both.  
Though the resilience framework has developed 
and expanded over time, its roots are still 
evident in that it only pertains to those circumstances where there is fiexposure to a significant 
threat or severe adversityfl (Luthar et al., 2000, p. 543). Resilience research, then, focuses on youth facing significant risk factors and on those characteristics and circumstancesŠprotective 
factorsŠthat help them cope su
ccessfully with that risk (Benson et al., 2006, p. 901; Werner & Smith, 1998).  
Resilience levels determine, to a great exte
nt, how youth respond to the obstacles in their lives, including those that mitigate against sc
hool success. Resilience not only differs among 
youth in general, but among youth in the same ne
ighborhood and even in the same family, where 
the usual demographic measures and 
risk factors are essentially identi
cal. In fact, more than half 
of all youth with risk factors, including pove
rty, succeed in adulthood de
spite the odds against 
them (Benard, 1991). 
 From research results, policymakers freque
ntly assume that outcomes of particular 
interventions (treatments) will apply similarl
y across an entire group. But some youth beat the 
odds and succeed while others who look similar de
mographically do not. Without understanding 
10these differences, we will continue to implem
ent policies that work for only some young people 
and be puzzled by the inconsistent results. Understanding resilience can help resolve that puzzle. 
The relationship between risk and protective factors is at the core 
of many prevention 
programs. Youth facing adverse circumstances tend to
 engage in more risk behaviors, such as 
alcohol or drug abuse, violence, early sexual behavior, antisocial behavior, and school problems. 
Prevention programs work to build protective factor
s in order to counter the negative effects of the risk factors for children facing adversity. Out-of-school program research indicates that PYD is tied to resilience. PYD theory tells us that it should be possible to intentionally build resilience in at-risk youth and enhance their likelihood of success. 
Though developed to explain the success of youth facing significant adversity, we now understand that resilience is normal for all hum
an beings (Benard, 2004; Masten, 2001). We all 
have the capacity to overcome difficulties 
in our lives and to find our way to becoming 
successful adults. What differs is the mix of ri
sk factors and protective factors in our lives. Resilience is something we all 
use as we face whatever difficulties come our way. SchoolsŠand 
families and communitiesŠcan help tip the bala
nce by ensuring that children have as many 
protective factors4 as possible.  Positive youth development.  From risk and resilience to positive youth development.
 Certain protective factorsŠpositive supports and personal attributesŠare related to a number of positive characteristics, 

behaviors and environmental factors that prov
ide one means of measuring the developmental 
                                                 4 Some of the literature distinguishes between protective factors and developmental assetsŠessentially that 
protective factors apply only to specific risks while developmental assets apply to all youth in all situations. For 
purposes of  this brief discussion, they are used as though they were equivalent. As PYD theory grew out of the 

theory of resilience, it became, and con
tinues to become, more differentiated from
 it, though still closely related. In 
practice, and in much of the literature, 
there is no perceived distinction.  
11strengths of youth.5 Rather than trying to understand why some at-risk children developed certain problem behaviors, researchers, 
extending the work on resilience, began to look at how so many 
at-risk children developed positive behaviors (Benard, 1991). Shifting from eliminating problems 
to building strengths also recognized that fiprevention is an important but inadequate goal . . . . 
Problem-free is not fully preparedfl for the futu
re (Pittman, et al., 2003, p. 6). This shift in 
attitude may seem minor, but in reality it si
gnificantly changed how developmental science 
approaches adolescents and has had a significant impact on 
youth programs. Richard Lerner 
emphasizes this difference in his explication of
 the state of developmental science and human 
development theory (Lerner, 2006), as do Peter Be
nson and his colleagues in their review of the state of PYD theory, research, and applications (Benson et al., 2006).  It has long been common to vi
ew adolescence as a time of stress, assuming that rebellion 
and risky behaviors are the norm. Th
is deficit view of this phase of human development led to an 
emphasis on prevention and remediation of pr
oblems in youth and school programs. By the 
1990s, however, youth development scholars began 
to incorporate the bioecological systems 
concept into their understanding of how young people develop (Lerner et al., 2005).  PYD is fipredicated on the idea that every 
young person has the potential for successful, 
healthy development and that all youth possess th
e capacity for positive developmentfl  (Lerner 
et al., 2005, p. 20). Bronfenbrenner™s (2005c) principle of continuing change and development 
throughout the lifespan, plasticity of developmen
t, is integral (Lerner et al., 2005). Recent 
neuroscience research has confirmed that the 
brain does not look like an adult brain until the 
                                                 5 Different terms are used in the literature and in practice 
to describe developmental factors, including strengths and 
assets. Because the term fidevelopmental assetsfl is a register
ed trademark of the Search In
stitute, an effort is made 
here to use fifactorsfl or fistrengthsfl instead of assets exce
pt when referring to Search Institute work or when that 
term is used in a particular study or framework. 
12early 20s (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). This continue
d physical development of the brain comports 
with Bronfenbrenner™s theory of the plasticity of human development. 
While risk factors are still important, rese
archers and youth workers now focus more on 
those characteristics of the person and the environment that both overcome risk factors and 
promote healthy development. Such developmenta
l factors are now pervasive in work on child and adolescent psychology and behavior. They are known by different names, including 
resources, strengths, skills, assets or developmental assets (e.g. Oman, Vesely, Tolma, Aspy, & 
Marshall, 2010; Search Institute, 2006), persona
l strengths (e.g. Benard, 2004), competencies 
(Lerner, von Eye, Lerner, & Lewin-Bizan, 2009)
 and noncognitive factors (Farrington et al., 
2012). Defining positive youth development
. The PYD field is broad and varied, arising out of multiple academic disciplines but also from pr
actical traditions. Becau
se the field is still 
relatively young, receiving significant attention only over the last 20 years, it is still evolving. Thus it is difficult to define the field™s parameters.  
Peter Benson and colleagues (2006) pull together the various strands of PYD theory and 
research, making sense of its roots, its current stat
e, and its possible future directions. They draw on research in many of the contributing discip
lines, including developmental psychology, public 
health, health promotion, prevention, sociology, 
social work, medicine, and education . Not 
mentioned but also influential are the fields 
of human ecology and family studies, among others. 
Much work draws on more than one area, ma
king this truly a multi-disciplinary field.  
Though developmental psychologists have done 
much of the significant work, they and others have come to recognize multi-disciplinary in
fluences and begun to refer to their work with the broader term, developmental science. fiThe role of developmental science is to identify those 
13relations between individual strengths and contextual assets in families, communities, cultures, 
and the natural environment, and to integrate 
strengths and assets to promote positive human 
development (Lerner, 2004a, 2004b)fl  (Lerner, 
2006, p. 12). This description summarizes PYD 
theory in brief. Benson and colleagues (2006) fill in the details.  Drawing from such a wide variety of fields, the definition of PYD is necessarily multi-
faceted. In keeping with its roots in the bio-ecol
ogical systems model of human development, the 
individual principles and concepts overlap and are interrelated. Benson and colleagues (2006) set out to describe certain themes, core principles, 
and constructs of PYD. The four themes expand 
beyond the limits of risk and resilience while 
not rejecting their importance. First, PYD is 
strength based, in contrast to earlier deficit-based approaches. Strengths, in this case called 
assets, are those fiattributes, skil
ls, competencies, and potentials n
eeded to succeed in the spheres 
of work, family, and civic lifefl (Benson et al., 2006, p. 895).  
A second theme is the centrality of community. 
Community is not just an fiincubatorfl of positive development, but also a setting where y
oung people can have influence, which in turn 
impacts their own development in a dynamic 
interaction (Benson et al., 2006, p. 895). The importance of the larger contexts in which young 
people live and the bi-directional interaction between the youth and the context stems fr
om the bioecological systems model.  
Third is the importance of values as ficonstr
uctive developmental resourcesfl (Benson et 
al., 2006, p. 895). Values include both moral perspectives and reli
gious world views. Based in 
research, PYD theory explicitly recognizes the va
lue of a moral grounding and religious beliefs, 
practices, and supports as significant resources in the positive development of young people.  
Finally, PYD theory now includes indicators 
of well-being and thriving for social good and a shift in focus from at-risk youth to all youth  (Benson et al., 2006, p. 896). The focus shifts 14from remediating individual problems to faci
litating the positive development of all youth and 
recognizing the importance of the 
larger context on the young person and vice versa. These four themes set PYD apart from other approach
es to improving the lives of young people.  The four themes are reflected in six core 
principles around which Benson and colleagues 
(2006) found consensus in the literature. They represent the consensus of research and practice as to what truly matters for the healthy deve
lopment of young people, whether poor or affluent and whatever their challenges might be. 
Six Core Principles of Positive Youth Development 
1. All youth have the inherent capacity 
for positive growth and development. 
2. A positive developmental trajectory is
 enabled when youth are embedded in 
relationships, contexts, and ecologies that nurture their development. 
3. The promotion of positive development is further enabled when youth participate in 
multiple, nutrient-rich relationships, contexts, and ecologies. 
4. All youth benefit from these relationships
, contexts, and ecologies. However, the strategies and tactics for promoting these developmental assets can vary considerably as 
a function of social location. 5. Community is a viable and critical ‚delivery system™ for positive youth development. 
6. Youth are major actors in their own development and are significant (and underutilized) resources for creating the kinds of relationshi
ps, contexts, ecologies and communities that 
enable positive youth development.  (Benson et al., 2006, p. 896). 

Benson and colleagues (2006) have reflected these themes and core principles in a 
summary of the core ideas or constructs of PYD theory. First is developmental contexts, all of 
the places, systems, and relationships in whic
h a young person lives. Second is a view of the 15nature of the child, which emphasizes the capacity
 to grow and thrive and to actively engage with supportive contexts. Also important are the 
opposing yet connected constructs of promotion 
of developmental strengths and reduction of high-risk behavior. Promotion of health, well-being, 
and thriving rounds out the list. Overarching all of these separate ideas is the understanding that all relationships among them are bi
-directional, that each influen
ces the others in a dynamic, 
interactive system that makes up the 
unique development of each individual. 
No single definition of PYD incorporates all of these themes, principles, or constructs, 
but most, if not all, include some
 of them. With so many aspects to
 consider, definitions are often crafted around research questions or variables of interest for a particular study. Over time, 
research may bring more clarity to the key as
pects of PYD, though its multidisciplinary nature 
will make it difficult. However, one of the lead
ing proponents of PYD, Karen Pittman has very 
simply summed up its essence in a phrase that ha
s become a mantra of PYD: that youth can, and 
should, be considered as resources to be developed rather than problems to be fixed (Pittman, 
Irby, Tolman, & Yohalem, 2003; Search Institute, 2006). 
Figure 1 summarizes the theoretical framework 
with the relationships among the different theories and DA.   16    Developmental
Assets
 (Benson,
etal.,1999,
2011;
Scalesetal,2006)
 fiImportant
relationships,
skills,opportunitiesand
values
that
helpguideadolescents
away
from
riskbehaviors,
foster
resilience,
andpromote
thriving.flPositive
Youth
Development
Theory
 (Benson
etal.,2006;
Lerner,
2006)
 Intentionally
buildstrengths
for
allyouth.
Youth
Development
Theory
 (Benson
etal.,2006;
Lerner,
2006)
 Thenatural
process
ofdevelopment
inyoung
people.
 Resiliency
 (Benard,
2004;
Werner
andSmith,
1998)
 Protective
factors
allow
youth
tosucceeddespite
obstacles.
 HumanDevelopment
Bioecological
theory (Bronfenbrenner,
1979,
2005a)
 Development
iscontextual,
interactive,
dynamicand
ongoing. Figure1.Theoretical
Framework17Section 2: Developmental Strengths-based Frameworks and Instruments 
Developmental strengths-based frameworks aris
e from conceptual models that fiidentify 
the positive developmental experiences that enha
nce the fusion of person and contextfl (Benson et al., 2006, p. 905). Though terminology varies, all 
strengths-based frameworks are based on 
these factors. They are generally described as fiimportant relationships, skills, opportunities and 

values that help guide adolescents away from 
risk behaviors, foster 
resilience, and promote thrivingfl (Scales, et al., 2006, p. 693). 
Not just static milestones or outcomes, they are also what 
Bronfenbrenner (2005b) calls fidevelopmental determinantsfl that th
e person uses to engage in further developmental process.
 Underlying these frameworks 
is a focus on the ultimate 
development of each youth into 
a successful, thriving adult.  
Few strengths-based frameworks have been reduced to comprehensive measurement 
instruments. In fact, frameworks are often base
d on already existing instruments. While there is 
general agreement on types and even individual f
actors, different framewor
ks are established for different purposesŠpractice orientationsŠand so are not necessarily suited to other uses. Most of these instruments focus on only one 
factor or a small group of factors. 
Sorting through the frameworks and instrument
s in order to make sense of what best 
describes and measures developmenta
l factors is a challenge, even in a particular setting such as 
a school. This is not surprising given the multi-discip
linary nature of the field and the fact that 
much of its theory arises from practice in 
youth programs and is stil
l practice focused. In framework development, the relationship of theo
ry, research, and practice has been interactive 
and complex. Despite the agreement on categories 
of factors and many individual factors, the 
empirical base is fragmented and not comprehe
nsive. The factors and categories overlap in different frameworks. The mixture of theory and 
practice, and the multi-disciplinary nature of 
18the field also make coherent tracking of existi
ng empirical support extrem
ely difficult. Studies from different disciplines of
ten support different factors. PYD research generally focuses on two key questions: (a) how to identify, define and measure developmental factors that are related 
to positive youth outcomes; and (b) whether those 
outcomes can be improved by efforts to enhance cer
tain of those factors. Frameworks organize 
the results of that research. 
Data on developmental factors ar
e almost universally obtained by 
surveys, and by far the majority are youth self-report surveys. There are also some parent, 
teacher, and youth program staff surveys which am
plify and corroborate the perceptions reported 
in the youth surveys. Results are consistently correlated with a number of youth outcome 
measures such as school grades and reduced
 risk behaviors (Benson, Scales, Leffert, & Roehlkepartain, 1999; Lerner et 
al., 2005; Scales & Leffert, 2004). Though there are always questions about the accuracy of self-report data, such surveys on 
developmental factors have been found, in general,
 to be valid and reliable (Eccles & Gootman, 
2002; Lerner et al., 2005; 2004). It may be that in this case perception is more meaningful than 
objective reality. fiThe research shows that young people™s satisfaction with the support they receive is at least as important as the numbers of 
adults to whom they can turn for help (reviewed 
in Scales & Gibbons, 1996).fl (Scales & Leffert, 2004, p. 23) Many surveys contain some items that relate 
to developmental factor
s and others that do not. Instruments with youth development-related ite
ms range from large, national surveys, such 
as the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS) and the National Longitudinal Survey 
of Adolescent Health (Add Health), to surveys developed for particular youth programs. They 
measure such factors as resilience, self-efficacy, 
self-esteem, motivation, risk
 behaviors, parental support, social support, peer relationships, school engagement, and community involvement.  
19A few studies support certain frameworks 
as a whole (e.g., Benson et al., 1999; 2011). Most helpful in understanding the state of the field are syntheses of research (for example, Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Scales & Leffert, 2004)
, which analyze and summarize the results of 
numerous studies across disciplines. These synt
heses highlight strengths and weaknesses in empirical support and gaps
 in the research.  While there is extensive literature, ranging 
from primarily theoretical to essentially 
practical, on developmental factor
s and the instruments that meas
ure them, it is not unusual for researchers, particularly in e
ducation, to investigate what could be defined as developmental 
assets without recognizing them as such or c
onsidering them in a larger framework. With the 
multidisciplinary nature of PYD, this can make it di
fficult to find research relevant to a particular 
framework. Researchers are left to use a great de
al of interpretation and judgment, which raises 
questions about consistency and completeness.  There are varying levels of research support for frameworks and instruments. Some 
frameworks use only broad categories while others
 are highly detailed. Some are developed from 
empirical evidence while others are developed fr
om theory. Some are then tested as entire 
frameworks while others are tested as separate
, and incomplete, parts. Those in the latter 
category often focus on creating and disseminating pr
ogram components to be used in practice.  
The frameworks and instruments considered here are among the most prominent and 
representative frameworks and the more comp
rehensive and commonly used instruments. All 
have some empirical base or ha
ve been tested empirically.  Definition and organization ΠFrameworks. 
Three well-known frameworks with 
different purposes and approaches are described here: (a) th
e fi5 Csfl developed out of a consensus of scholars, (b) the National Research Council personal assets and settings features, 20and (c) the 40 Developmental Assets developed by the Search Institute. Table 1 lists the factor 
categories for each framework for comparison. 
Table1.SelectedDevelopmentalStrengths
basedFrameworks
 Frameworkand
developmentalfactors
5Cs+1aEight
Categories(40DevelopmentalAssets)b4Assets;8Settings
FeaturescDeveloper(Several)SearchInstitute
NationalResearch
CouncilPerson/InternalCompetenceCommitment
tolearning
Physicaldevelopment
ConfidencePositivevaluesIntellectual
developmentCharacterSocialcompetencies
Psychologicalandemotionaldevelopment
CaringPositiveidentitySocialdevelopment
Context/External
ConnectionSupportPhysical&psychological
safetyContributionEmpowerment
Appropriatestructure
Boundaries&expectationsSupportiverelationships
Constructiveuseoftime
Opportunities
tobelong

Positivesocialnorms Supportforefficacy
&mattering
 Opportunities
forskillbuilding Integration
offamily,school
&community
effortsa(Lerner,Brentano,Dowling,&Anderson,
2002;Lerner
etal.,2005;
Lerner,Lerner,&Phelps,2009;Roth&BrooksGunn,2003).b(Benson
etal.,1999;Scales
&Leffert,
2004).c(Eccles
&Gootman,
2002).  21The 5 Cs. There are many ways to define thriving and successful adulthood, but probably 
the most recognized in the youth development field 
is the fi5 Csfl (Lerner et al., 2002; Lerner et al., 2005; Lerner, von Eye, et al., 2009; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). The 5 Cs are five positive 

developmental outcomesŠcompetence, confidence,
 connection, character, and caring. Directly or indirectly, the 5 Cs encompass 
most, if not all, of the individua
l factors identified in various models and research.  A sixth fiCŠcontributionŠis considered the culmin
ation of the others. The theory is that a successful, thriving adult will have all of the five Cs and will, as a result, contribute for the 
benefit of others and the community. The 5 Cs developed over time as a consensus among a 
number of researchers and pr
actitioners (Eccles & Gootma
n, 2002; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). 
Richard Lerner and colleagues use this model 
extensively in their longitudinal study of the impact of 4-H programs (Lerner 
& Lerner, 2013; Lerner et al.,
 2005; Lerner, von Eye, et al., 2009).   Beginning with 5th grade students in 2002, the study continued through 2010. Annual reports have been issued on eight years, or waves, of data, following the students from 5th through 12th grades. The first wave report (Lerner et
 al., 2005) describes the framework and the 
measurements used to evaluate it.
 The initial data for this long-term longitudinal study of PYD in 
4-H programs came from surveys of 1,700 youth a
nd 1,117 of their parents. Survey items were 
derived from a wide variety of measures of pot
entially relevant factors, most from existing 
instruments and a few created for the study. 
A conceptual model was developed, tested 
extensively, and modified for improved fit. The m
odel and data were analyzed using a variety of statistical methods, including structural e
quation modeling, multiple regression, and HLM. 
Methods are thorough and detailed, and limitations
 of method and result
s are discussed, making 
22this a strong contribution to PYD theory and the value of developmental assets as measures of 
PYD. 
The 5 Cs are derived from PYD theory and research and reflect the positive development 
view as opposed to the deficit view. They emphasize strengths of youth, involving such concepts 
as developmental assets, moral development,
 civic engagement, well-being, and thriving. 
Finally, repeating one of the core principles of PYD theory, fiThe
se concepts are predicated on 
the idea that every young person has the potentia
l for successful, healthy development and that 
all youth possess the capacity for positive developmentfl (Lerner et al., 2005, p. 20). Table 1, 

above, lists the 5Cs, plus contribution. In the first year of the 4-H study, the fifirst wave,fl only cross-sectional data were available. The first wave research looked for ev
idence of the 5 Cs as indicators of PYD, of a relationship between PYD and contribution and lower risk behavior, and of a relationship between youth development program
s and PYD, contribution, and lower risk behaviors (Lerner et al., 2005, p. 26). Results showed that the 5 Cs do represent the components of PYD. They also 
showed a relationship between PYD and the 5 Cs and contribution. Relationships were measured 
at one point in time, so the results are limited in
 scope. Consistent with theory, then, the 5 Cs appear to measure PYD and higher levels of PYD align with higher levels of contribution, lending support to the 5 Cs framework and the usef
ulness of the concept of developmental assets in identifying what makes a di
fference in children™s lives. 
National Research Council. 
One of the most comprehensive reviews and syntheses of 
the research on developmental factors was pr
epared by a committee convened by the National 
Research Council and Institute of Medicine (N
RCIM) to focus on ficommunity interventions and 
programs to promote positive outcomes for adolescent developmentfl (Eccles & Gootman, 2002, 
23p. 4). The report covers research on adolescent development genera
lly, as well as developmental 
factors, which the authors call assets, and cont
exts. Findings are organized in a comprehensive 
framework of developmental factors and settings.  
Eccles and Gootman (2002) describe th
e NRCIM framework and summarize the 
evidence relevant to each of thei
r four personal asset categories and seven characteristics of developmental settings. Based on an extensive 
review of the youth development literature, 
NRCIM developed a framework of personal a
nd social assets (Eccles & Gootman, 2002, pp. 74-
75) and features of positive developmental setti
ngs ( pp. 90-91). Table 1, above, lists the assets along with those of other frameworks. The four 
groups, or categories, of personal and social assets are: (a) physical development; (b) in
tellectual development; (c) psychological and emotional development; and (d) social developmen
t. Each category is further defined by specific developmental factors.  
The eight features of positive developmental settings, also called social setting domains, 
are listed in Table 1:  (a) physical and psychological safety, (b) appropriate structure, (c) supportive relationships, (d) opportunities to belong, (e) positive social norms, (f) support for 
efficacy and mattering, (g) opportunities for skill bu
ilding, and (h) integration of family, school, 
and community efforts. Again, each category has a 
list of specific attributes that create the 
positive setting.  
Personal and social assets are described as outcomes of development while the features of 
social settings support development of the assets. 
The Search Institute, for example, classifies 
both of these domains as developmental assets 
(Benson et al., 1999). They are distinguished in that framework as internal and 
external assets. Despite the diffe
rent terminology, the theory and 
function are essentially the same. (The Search
 Institute framework is described below.) 
24A large part of the report is devoted to the role and evaluation of community youth 
programs in an effort to identify program features and outcomes that support the Committee™s 

framework. This application of the fiingredientsfl 
derived from theory and research to evaluation of practice settings, and the refinement of theo
ry based on results from those evaluations are 
hallmarks of the interaction of pr
actice and theory in PYD theory. 
The review is an in-depth analysis of seven extensive reviews and meta-analyses of youth 
program evaluations. In total, th
ese reviews and meta-analyses looked at more than 500 program 
evaluations and analyzed more than 200 that 
met their quality requirements. The underlying 
program evaluations chosen used randomized expe
rimental or strong quasi-experimental models 
and had other features of high quality research design. NRCIM then focused on 35 of the underlying programs for more detailed anal
ysis (Eccles & Gootman, 2002, pp. 150-165).  
Many of the programs were not designed with 
specific assets in mind, and so researchers 
fioften had to make assumptions about likel
y featuresfl (Eccles & Gootman, 2002, p. 148). The 
underlying studies included ment
al health, violence prevention, teen pregnancy prevention, and PYD programs. Also, despite the requirements of
 rigor for inclusion, many evaluations lacked 
one or more requirements, such as long-term fo
llow-up data (to look for persistence of effects and fisleeperfl effects), data on multi-year programs versus short-term programs, and 

explanations of results. Lack of
 the necessary data for a causal 
analysis was the primary problem. 
And, because the studies evaluated whole program packages rather than specific program 
components, it was not possible to determine ex
actly what worked in any given program. Few 
studies met all of the requirements for rigorous
, experimental or quasi-e
xperimental research.  
As a result, generalization is limited to ove
rall results. While the 
overall results support the value of developmental assets
 and settings in improving outco
mes, they can tell us no more 
25than that these kinds of programs work more of
ten than not and in one way or another. This theme is repeated many times throughout 
the review (Eccles & Gootman, 2002).
 Because these studies cannot isolate the causal mechanisms or 
explain how they operate, we are left with examples of programs that work and can be 
replicated. But without understanding how they 
work, we may miss key factors, which w
ill lead to less succe
ssful replication.  It is clear, however, that these findings show no one set or combination of assets or settings that is universally best. Reflecting the complex and interactive nature of human development, different assets and 
combinations of assets are effective for different youth and in different circumstances. It is al
so reasonable to conclude that different combinations can be effective for a particular young person. There is a complex mix of inte
ractive features and assetsŠcharacteristics of both the contex
t and the personŠthat can enhance positive development. This is something that Urie 
Bronfenbrenner (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) would surely recognize. The bad news is that there is no prescription for youth in general or even for a particular youth; the good news is that there are many paths to successful development.  
The studies, overall, provide support for the NRCIM framework. Eccles and Gootman 
conclude,  fiTogether the concurrent and longitudinal studies provide a growing body of consistent evidence supporting the predictive impor
tance of the set of characteristics we have identifiedfl (Eccles & Gootman, 2002, p. 83). Beyond 
that, there is not enough information to 
isolate key program factors and setting characte
ristics in order to confirm the relevance of 
specific framework elements. 
In sum, Eccles and Gootman (2002) find repeat
edly that program results in individual 
studies are promising, that some programs should be
 replicated, and that many of the elements of 
the NRCIM framework are supported by the resear
ch. At the same time, they note numerous 
26flaws in research design and the available data. Th
e ultimate conclusion is that, overall, programs 
focusing on developmental assets of the type in th
e framework have positive results. At the same 
time, fimuch more research is necessary before 
one can be confident about which programs and 
which aspects of these programs actually
 impact youth developmentfl (p. 177).  
The primary value of this framework is in th
e collection and organization of key elements of PYD. It synthesizes and organizes much information from theo
ry, research, and practice into a 
coherent conceptual frame that can guide future
 research and program pl
anning. The report is an extremely valuable contribution to our understand
ing of youth development in the real world. It makes numerous recommendations for programs a
nd research that will add to our knowledge and understanding. But it does not lead to a coherent approach to testing either the overall framework or its individu
al or groups of assets. There is, however, no instrument designed to te
st this framework or its elements directly. 
Researchers are left to construct their own instruments, based on their own hypotheses. This is likely to lead to continued fragmentation, where 
particular studies consider particular assets, particular settings, or some particular combination.  
40 Developmental Assets. 
While the literature reveals a num
ber of different systems that 
describe developmental factors, one framework 
is particularly comprehensive, has a large 
research base, and is well knownŠthe Search 
Institute™s fi40 Developmental Assetsfl (Search 
Institute, 2006). This theory-based framework ha
s been used and refined over two decades from 
surveys of more than 2 million youth in more
 than 3,000 communities across the United States 
and many more internationally 
(Benson et al., 1999; Scales, 2011b; Scales & Leffert, 2004). Because it is more comprehensive than others, and has been used more widely, a large research 

base guides its use and interpretation. Most researchers at least make reference to the 40 Assets 
27framework and many consider some or all of its a
ssets in their work. Search Institute researchers 
describe this developmental st
rengths-based framework as:  
a theory-based model linking features of ecol
ogies (external assets) with personal skills and capacities (internal assets), guided by the hypothesis that external and internal assets 
are dynamically interconnected ‚building bloc
ks™ that, in combination, prevent high risk health behaviors and enhance many forms 
of developmental success (i.e., thriving) 
(Benson et al., 2006, p. 906). 
The reliance on PYD theory is clear. While
 they note that resilience informs PYD, 
Benson and colleagues make the distinction between
 this model and models relying on risk and 
prevention. The models agree on the developmen
tal goals of reducing problem behaviors and 
negative outcomesŠbuilding resilience. However, PYD also promotes additional approaches, 

including thriving, skill-building, and competency (Ben
son et al., 2006, p. 901). And PYD focuses on all children, not just 
those at risk for problems. 
In this framework, the 40 Developmental Asse
ts are categorized as either external or 
internal assets.  
External assets comprise a set of experiences and relationships across multiple contexts 

of the youth™s life that adults (and peers) provide for young people: support; empowerment; boundaries and expectations; and c
onstructive use of time. Internal assets 
comprise a set of individual qualitiesŠva
lues, skills, and self-perceptionsŠthought to 
help the young person become effectively 
self-regulating: commitment to learning; 
positive values; social competencies and positive identity (Scales, Benson, 

Roehlkepartain, Sesma Jr, & van Dulmen, 2006, p. 693).   
28The external assets are divided into four categories: support, empowerment, boundaries 
and expectations, and constructive use of time. Th
e internal asset catego
ries are commitment to 
learning, positive values, social competencies, 
and positive identity. Appendix A describes the 
40 assets by category. Table 1, above, shows the eight categories in comparison to the 5 Cs and 
the NRCIM frameworks. 
The Search Institute developmental assets represent an effort to apply theory to practice. 
Over the years, survey questions and formats ha
ve been developed and refined to give more 
concrete measures of the assets. Numerous analyses of the survey data have examined the 

relationships between asset levels and both risk behaviors and positive outcomes. These analyses 

have  shown consistent negative relationships with risk behavior patterns and positive relationships between levels of assets and pos
itive outcomes, including school success (Benson 
& Scales, 2009; Benson et al., 1999; Leffert et al., 1998; Scales, 2011b; Scales et al., 2006; 
Scales & Leffert, 2004). Benson and colleagues (2006) also describe the extent of this research support, noting the common finding that there is persuasive evidence for the connection between developmental assets and developmental outcomes
, concurrently and longitudinally, at least for overall asset levels. At the same time, they rec
ognize that most research considers only a small 
number of outcomes fifor which positive youth de
velopment theory is best explicated, and that 
appear to have strong research 
bases and broad constituencies of 
researchers, practitioners, and 
policymakers dealing with themfl (Benson et al., 2006, p. 915).  
In a similar, earlier analysis
 of the research, specifically 
focusing on research support for 
the assets in the 40 Developmental Assets fram
ework, Scales and Leffert (2004) summarize the 
research results from surveys of more th
an 217,000 students in the 1999-2000 school year. Research results are consistent with those found by Eccles and Gootman that the more assets 
29youth have, the less likely they are to engage in negative behavior and the more likely they are to engage in positive behavior. They also observe that these relationships are fifairly consistent . . . 

across differences of race and ethnicity, gender, age, socioeconomic background, community 
size, and regionfl (Scales & Leffert, 2004, p. 7). Key findings are that the assets can promote resilience and th
at resilient youth fihave at least one adult who cares deeply for them.fl Elemen
ts that fioccur repeatedly in the scientific 
literature as critical elements in the healthy development of yout
hfl include the relationships and connections young people have with caring others; the development of various skills and competencies such as planning and decision ma
king; the effective occupation of young people™s time; the establishing of consistent norms and ex
pectations for behavior; the positive connection 
to social institutions such as schools and religious congregations; and the development of 
positive self-perceptions (Scales & Leffert, 2004, 
p. 13). These elements are reflected in the 
developmental assets. The findings 
are consistent with findings from other studies, including the 
NRCIM report (Eccles & Gootman, 2002) and the 
4-H PYD study (Lerner et al., 2005; Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2009).  More recently, Farrington and colleagues (2012) reviewed the literature with a focus limited to school success factors and develope
d a comprehensive framework of non-cognitive 
factors supported by the literature. They identified five categorie
s of non-cognitive factors that relate to academic performance and components of
 those categories. Focused entirely on school success, the five categories are: academic behavi
ors, academic perseverance, academic mindsets, 
learning strategies, and social skills.  30Other strengths-based frameworks. 
Over the last two decades, much work has been done 
as the developmental strengths approach has ga
ined ground in research and in practice. As a result, some reviews have attempted to develop 
comprehensive, often practice-focused, lists and 
descriptions of assts. Some are research
-based and broad enough to be considered comprehensive frameworks. In addition, numer
ous organizations advance programs based on 
concepts that match some of the developmental a
ssets identified in research-based models. Some 
of those programs have some research behind th
em, but often it is not significant. The 5 Cs, the 
NRCIM and the 40 Developmental Assets fram
eworks described above are among the most 
comprehensive, research-based, and commonly accepted. 
Measurement ΠInstruments. 
The literature describes dozens, maybe even hundreds, of 
instruments that measure one or more developmen
tal factors or categorie
s of factors. In many 
cases, research reports do not recognize the connection between their analysis and youth development theory or developmental factors or
 assets. And there are many other instruments 
that are not included in the literature, which may or may not have any research support. 
Most often, communities and schools are still concerned with risk factors. And protecting 
against risk factors is pa
rt of a PYD approach. As a result, as
set and behavior surveys frequently focus on risk behaviors, or deficits, such as alcohol and drug use and abuse, smoking, bullying, 
violence, and early sexual behaviors. There are many locally created surveys for these purposes 
(e.g., Donohue, 2002; Oman et al., 2010), but only a 
few are used on a more widespread basis (Lerner, von Eye, et al., 2009; Scales & Leffert, 2004).  All of these specialized instruments, in esse
nce, make up a data base of survey items 
from which researchers and youth programs can cr
eate instruments to 
serve their specific purposes. The 4-H study described above (Lerner 
et al., 2005) is an excellent example where 
31researchers pulled numerous items from a multitude of sources and created some of their own. 
This would not be feasible other than in a research setting. Some works give guidance in 
navigating this complex array of choices, 
though they focus on youth program evaluations. 
Sabatelli and Anderson (2005) provide an extensive guide to these instruments in their 
handbook on program assessment. The National Resear
ch Council provides a similar guide in its 
comprehensive analysis of youth program eval
uations (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). The Forum for 
Youth Investment (Wilson-Ahlstrom, Yohalem,
 DuBois, Adler, & Hillaker, 2014) gives a particularly detailed description and analysis of a selection of instruments that cover 
developmental factors more broadly. While there 
is overlap among these reviews in the factors covered, there are also many instruments th
at are included in only one of them.  
Some comprehensive instruments are de
signed to measure a broad array of 
developmental factors. Rather than focusing on a 
particular program or purpose, they intend to 
give a somewhat complete profile for each youth. They can, then, be used in a variety of settings, 
from whole communities, to schools,
 to individual programs. As fioff-the-shelffl products, these 
surveys can make the task of a researcher or 
program evaluator much less complicated. An added 
advantage is that at least some 
of them have been tested for reliability and validity, as a whole 
and for individual items.  
Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Be
haviors and the Developmental Assets Profile
. Probably the most well-known a
nd commonly used broad survey instruments were developed by 
the Search Institute to measure th
e assets in its 40 Developmental Assets framework. At least in 
terms of number of research articles, 
they may also be the most researched. 
The Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors Survey (A&B) consists of 156 items that measure the 40 devel
opmental assets, 10 risk behavior patterns, 8 thriving indicators, 5 32developmental deficits and include standard de
mographic questions (Sca
les et al., 2006, p. 697). The survey has been used since 1990 
to survey more than three million 4
th through 12th graders in roughly 3,000 US communities. From 1990 to 1995, 
the survey assessed 30 assets and since 
1995 the updated 40-asset list (Scales & Leffert, 2004, p. 5). Since that time many more youth 
have been surveyed across the United States and 
internationally with either the A&B survey or 
the more recent Developmental Asset Profile survey (DAP).  
Rather than measuring individua
l assets, the DAP measures the eight categories of assets 
and five contextsŠpersonal, social, family, school, and community. Recently items have been 

developed on perceptions of school climate for us
e in schools. These items have been identified 
as closely linked with school success, but have not yet been used exte
nsively (P.C. Scales, personal communication, July 22, 2011).  Introduced in 2005, the DAP is used by hundreds of youth annually, including more than 
110,000 in 2009-2010 (Scales, 2011a). It has also been us
ed in more than a dozen countries other 
than the U.S. DAP results are highly correlated 
with the results of the A&B survey, indicating 
that, as intended, they both measure the same
 thing. The results of a comparison from five 
countries fisuggest not only that the DAP is usable across a variety of global cultural settings, but that intentional asset-building efforts can succeed 
in relatively brief peri
ods of 3-9 months in 
producing sizable gains in young people™s experience of assetsfl (Scales, 2011a, Discussion section, para. 1). Other instruments. 
Of the frameworks discussed above and shown in Table 1, the 40 
Developmental Assets framework is the only one 
with a related instrument. The NRCIM (Eccles 
& Gootman, 2002) relied on result
s from other research using vari
ous instruments in creating its 
framework. Lerner and his colleague
s (Lerner et al., 2005) used a set of instruments to test the 5 
33Cs framework, but did not develop an instrument 
that is useful beyond their research purposes. Farrington and colleagues (2012), like the NRCIM, relied on other research for their framework. 
Of the surveys that Eccles and Gootman (2002) describe, only the Search Institute A&B 
survey is broadly focused on developmental asse
ts. The others are large, national surveys or specialized studies focusing on risk behaviors and health. All have items relating to PYD, but 
that is not their focus. The Forum for Youth Investment, a pr
ominent organization in the youth 
program area and a PYD theory supporter, peri
odically reviews youth outcome surveys with a 
focus is on out-of-school programs. Many instrume
nts reviewed in their latest report (Wilson-
Ahlstrom et al., 2014) are geared toward specif
ic program outcomes or 
narrow program areas.  One general purpose survey is the California Healthy Kids Survey Resilience and Youth 
Development Module (RYDM). It was developed 
for the state of California and is used extensively there. It is now being used in some 
other parts of the country as well. The original purpose was health-related, but it also has 11 supplemental modules, of which the RYDM is one. 
On its website (www.wested.org/hks), California Healthy Kids shows that the RYDM is very similar to the A&B survey, but there is little
 information on the rese
arch base behind it. Other surveys are more locally used. For example, the Youth Asset Survey (Oman et al., 
2002; Oman et al., 2010) was developed to evalua
te a teen pregnancy prevention program in 
Oklahoma. While the development and testing of
 the instrument followed rigorous procedures 
(Oman et al., 2010), there is no evid
ence that it is widely available. The Community Asset 
Development for Youth (CADY) survey has been used
 in Michigan to measure assets in order to 
reduce risk behaviors related to violence and substance abuse (Keith, Huber, Griffin, & Villarruel, n.d.). It was used primarily in urban 
areas in southeastern Michigan in the 1990s. The 
CADY survey assesses strengths but also identifies deficits Πrisk behaviors such as alcohol and 34drug use, bullying, and violent behavior, among others (Donohue, 2002). CADY also includes parent and teacher surveys as well as surveys of
 community members and leaders. As with the 
YAS, there is no evidence that CADY has been used or tested more extensively.   
While there are a large number of surv
eys on developmental factors, few are 
comprehensive or based on and involved in ongoi
ng research. Most research is on specific programs or has a narrow focus on a particular pr
actical issue. Researchers, program evaluators, 
communities, and practitioners have a wide array of choices depending on their purposes and the 

outcomes they seek to assess.  
  35Section 3: Relationship of Developmental Factors and School Success While a vast array of literature generally supports the positive relationship of developmental strengths to well-being, thriving, a
nd success, little of it is based in schools or 
considers school programs or interventions. The 
literature describes positive outcomes for youth 
in programs and communities that build develo
pmental assets (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lerner 
& Benson, 2003; Lerner et al., 2005; Lerner, von Eye, et al., 2009; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2004).  Much of the literature evaluating after-sc
hool programs assesses program success in 
developing these strengths in one form or another, but their use in evaluating school success in 
the school context is still uncom
mon. Research outside of sc
hools does consistently find a positive relationship between deve
lopmental strengths and school success, including grades and 
high school graduation. (Benson et al., 1999; Scales et al., 2006; Scales & Leffert, 2004) Many studies emphasize the complexity of assess
ing the impact of de
velopmental factors. 
Factors are often related and interactions are not uncommon (e.g. Gutman, Sameroff, & Eccles, 
2002). There are differences in impact ba
sed on the number (Benson et al., 1999) and 
combinations of factors (Gutman et al., 2002; Scal
es et al., 2006). Some have a greater impact 
for youth with more risk factor
s than with fewer (Gutman et 
al., 2002). Overall, higher asset levels are related to higher levels of school success. In fact, studies have found that 
developmental factors have a greater impact on 
school success than do such demographic factors 
as race, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic stat
us (Gutman et al., 2002; Scales, Benson, Leffert, 
& Blyth, 2000; Scales et al., 2006).  Measures of school success. 
Though standardized testing of reading and math skills has 
become, since No Child Left Behind, the benchmark 
measure of school success, it is far from the 
only useful measure. Some studies
 do assess the impact of devel
opmental assets on standardized 
36test scores, but usually in combination with
 other measures (Gutman et al., 2002; Hanson, 
Austin, & Lee-Bayha, 2004). Other measures include
 grades or grade point average, either of core subjects or all subjects (Benson et al., 1999; Farrington et al., 2012; Gutman et al., 2002; 
Hirsch, Hedges, Stawicki, & Mekinda, 2011; Scales et al., 2006; Schmidt & Padilla, 2003); 
graduation from high school (Farrington et al
., 2012; Vargas, 2010); participation in extra-curricular activities (Schmidt & Padilla, 2003), and school at
tendance or absences (Benson et al., 
1999; Gutman et al., 2002; Hirsch et al., 2011).  Developmental factors and school success. Education researchers often use socioeconomic status and minority 
status to examine effects of po
licies and practices on different groups. At the policy level, this often leads to the assumption 
that all within a particular demographic are the same and react in the same
 way. But anyone who has worked with children knows that within the same neighborhood, even w
ithin the same family, children are not the 
same. While education research shows that povert
y and minority status are predictors of school 
problems and failure, it does not explain why so
 many young people defy that prediction and 
succeed. A more fine-grained measure is needed. 
Developmental strengths-based fr
ameworks show great promise as that more fine-grained 
addition, or even alternative, to the usual demographic measures. As noted above, there is 
evidence that developmental factors have a gr
eater impact on school success than do such 
demographic factors as race, ethnicity, gender, or so
cioeconomic status.  It is not poverty or race, 
per se, that leads to school failure; PYD theory 
tells us that it is the contexts and individual experiences that are shaped by poverty and race 
which create obstacles to success. The question 
is not whether poor children can succeed in school, but how so ma
ny of them have the resilience 
to overcome the obstacles and succeed.                              
37Because the mix of contexts and experience
s is different for each individual, broad 
demographic measures are not very helpful for 
meaningful understanding of children™s success in school. To explain why some children are mo
re resilient than others with the same 
demographic characteristics, a developmental 
strengths-based framework focuses on specific 
factors, within and derived from those contexts 
and experiences, that have been shown to make a 
difference. Whatever their socioeconomic status, students 
with more total assets have higher grades. 
Specific assets have also been shown to relate to school success (Scales & Leffert, 2004). Though research to date has not specifically considered the relationship between many of the 
individual factors and school success, it does show
 relationships with such factors as adult 
support (Vargas, 2010),  student engagement and motivation 
(Scales & Leffert, 2004), and attendance (Farrington et al., 2012; Scales & Leffert, 2004), among others. Given the research base underlying the developmental assets framew
ork, it is likely that many more of the 
individual assets and asset categories will prove 
to help explain why some children succeed in 
school while others who look very similar in other respects do not. 
Developmental assets provide a way to focus on 
key factors, identified
 by research, that affect children™s school performance. The large numb
er of factors and the va
riety of contexts and characteristics they cover give a relatively 
detailed picture of each child™s developmental 
strengths and weaknesses. This picture can, in turn, tell us a great deal about the child™s level of 
resilience and suggest promis
ing interventions that may enhance performance.  
Research on out-of-school programs shows that 
there are ways to increase assets and that 
such increase is related to improved school
 success (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2009). But we don™t know whether some assets or categories of asse
ts have more power than others. We don™t know 
38whether different assets might be
 more significant for some soci
al groups than others. We don™t 
know how much impact schools alone can have
 on assets and success. And, though we have 
some evidence from out-of-school programs, 
we don™t know the mechanisms by which schools 
can best enhance assets and performance fo
r individual students or groups of students. What we do know about the relationship between developmental factors and school 
success indicates that developing interventions that enhance strengths is a promising approach to 
improving student performance and ultimate school success. The developmental assets 

framework and related research suggest some 
promising interventions. The difference between 
theories of youth development and PYD is the 
concept of intentional change, the purposeful effort to enhance development (Benson et al., 
2006). Schools, as highly significant contexts in children™s lives, are an ideal vehicle for impl
ementing this intentional change and enhancing 
healthy development. 
Benson and colleagues describe fithree major 
points of potential intervention [which]–in combination, increase the proba
bility of adaptive developmen
tal regulationfl (2006, p. 910). The first is fiincreasing the developmental attentiveness of contex
ts...to increase their capacity to nurture, support, and constructively challenge the developing personfl (2006, p. 910). As only one of many contexts in a child™s 
life, school™s influence is limited 
but can still be significant. In addition, connecting what happens in school to other contexts, in mutually supportive 
relationships, can increase assets and lead to better school performance. Connections between 
home and school and between school and commu
nity youth programs are two important points 
where schools can have significant influence. The second point of potential intervention is 
fienhancing the skills and competencies of 
youth . . . to further enable their ‚natural™ capacity to engage with, connect, change, and learn 
39from their social contextsfl (Benson et al., 
2006, p. 910). Schools already provide a multitude of 
programs, including character education, risk prev
ention, and others, that could be aligned with developmental factors as a unifying framewor
k. Introducing new student supports and improving 
existing supportsŠexternal assetsŠcan also increase internal assets.  
Finally, providing opportunities for, and encouraging, student involvement in and 
contribution to the school and the larger 
community can build st
rengths and enhance performance. This aspect of the PYD model 
may have the most powerful implications for 
success, in school and in adult life as well. fiThis includes such concepts as youth leadership, service learning, youth empowerment, and youth 
engagementfl (Benson et al., 2006, p. 910). 
As schools and communities develop and impl
ement developmental strength-building 
programs, experience and research will provide mo
re guidance as to what works and what does 
not work to improve school success for individua
ls and groups of students. Though there is a 
growing body of research around out-of-school programs, the work is still in its infancy as it relates to schools. Developmental strengths-based
 frameworks can help focus on enhancing the 
key factors that lead to improved school performance and success despite the obstacles children 
face.   40Section 4: Statement of the Problem 
Education research indicates that low family 
socioeconomic status is
 a strong predictor of children at risk for school failure. However, not all disadvantaged children fail in school. In fact, a large number of them succeed and graduate. 
Education researchers and policymakers often 
overlook such cases, yet they may hold important lessons for successful policy development and 

implementation. What makes some children resilie
nt in disadvantaged environments? Why can 
some children overcome the disadvantages of p
overty, prejudice, immigration, limited English 
proficiency, and hardships at home to succeed agai
nst the odds?  The answers to these questions 
can give us guidance in developing policies and programs to ensure
 that more students can beat the odds.  School choice is a pervasive policy response to the school failure of many students, 
particularly those classified as disadvantaged. Successful navigation of the school choice 
process, then, should lead to success for more stude
nts. But students cannot be successful if they 
do not choose appropriately, change schools frequently, or both. That leads to the questions of whether developmental factors can
 predict successful school choice and persistence and, if so, in 
what ways. To that end, this study proposes the following: 
Research questions 1. Are there differences in developmental a
ssets between active choosers and passive choosers (i.e., students who attend 
their assigned neighborhood schools)? 2. What is the relationship between students™ 
developmental assets and their persistence 
in the school of their choice? 413. What are students™ perceptions of the factors that led them to choose and to either 
persist in or leave their school? Hypotheses 
1. Active choosers, have higher developmenta
l asset levels than passive choosers. 
2. Students™ persistence (how long they stay) in schools they have actively chosen to attend is a positive function of their developmental assets. 
3. Students will perceive certain factors as leading them to 
choose and to either persist in or leave their school, includ
ing: the nature of relationships with adults and/or peers at school; the level of parental or other adult support and encouragement; the level of 
engagement in the work; existence or lack of
 extracurricular activities; feeling safe or 
unsafe; understanding of and ability to comply with school rules; preparation for 
college or chosen career; bonding with or pride in the school; and feeling competent 
or incompetent to do the work and succeed. 
  42Chapter Three: Methods and Methodology 
Section 1: Introduction and Overview The study consists of two components. First is
 a quantitative analysis of the relationship between students™ developmental asse
ts and their choice of their 9th grade school and persistence in that school from the beginning of the 2012-13 
school year to the beginning of the 2013-14 year, controlling for other factors. Second is a phenomenographic qualitative analysis, based on 
interviews with five students in the spring of 2014 to examine their 
perceptions of the factors that led them to choose and to either persist in or
 leave their school. Developmental asset levels (aggregated assets, categories, and contexts) ar
e the key explanatory variables for both phases. This chapter begins with definitions of key terms, including the organization of the 
developmental assets as used in the DAP survey 
instrument, then describes the context where the 
study is located. Section 2 describes the quantitative analysis methods, followed by Section 3 
which covers the qualitative methods. Finally, th
e limitations of the study are considered in 
Section 4.  Definitions.  1. Developmental Assets
 (DA): as defined by the Search Institute and used in the DAP 
survey instrument. Appendix A 
is a list of the 40 assets. 
2. (Asset) Categories: the eight divisions of 
the 40 developmental assets, listed in Table 
2. Also see Appendix A for a list 
of the assets 
in each category. 
3. Aggregated assets or aggregates: total assets, external assets, and internal assets; the 
aggregation of asset categories into more general divisions, as shown in Table 2. 4. (Asset) Contexts: A separate division of th
e 40 assetsŠnot related to categoriesŠinto 
five settings in which a young person lives and where the developmental assets operate, 
listed in Table 2. 435. Student persistence: whether a student stays in his or her initial 9th grade school during the study period. 
6. Stayer: a student who persists in his or her initial 9
th grade school during the study period. 
7. Leaver: a student who leaves his or her initial 9th grade school during the study period. 8. Active chooser: a student who attends a school other than his or her assigned school. 9. Passive chooser: a student who attends his or her assigned school.   Table2.DevelopmentalAsset
Aggregates,
Categories,andContextsTotalassets(aggregate)
CategoriesContextsExternal
assets(aggregate)
Internalassets(aggregate)
SupportCommitment
tolearning
PersonalEmpowerment
PositivevaluesSocialBoundariesandexpectations
Socialcompetencies
FamilyConstructiveuseoftime
PositiveidentitySchoolCommunity  Study context. The research site is a public school district (the District) in the Southwest United States. It is among the largest school di
stricts in the country, with more than 150,000 students. The District encompasses the vast majo
rity of a large city a
nd a few small areas of 
nearby cities. It consists of more than 200 schools, includ
ing more than 30 high schools, 30 middle schools, 140 elementary schools and severa
l alternative schools. As is common in the Southwest, the majority of district students 
are Hispanic (69.7% for 2012-13) while 23.6% are African American. Only 4.6% of district students are white. Economically disadvantaged 
44students (eligible for free or reduced price lunch) make up 89.4% 
of the students, with 68.6% at-risk, 39.6% with limited English proficiency, a
nd 12.1% identified as talented and gifted.  The District was subject to 
a federal desegregation order for many years, during which 
time many white students left the 
district for other districts or for private schools. Today the effects of that desegregation order are seen 
in the student demographic make-up and in the 
number of choice schools. Those magnet schools fo
rmed the base for a variety of school choice 
options at all levels.  Choices are greatest for high school students. Some District choice schools 
and programs have selective enrollment, where students must meet certain achievement or other 

criteria to be admitted. Some schools and progr
ams have minimal application requirements, 
including a large number of specialty academ
ies and career programs housed within 20 
comprehensive high schools that may draw student
s to those schools. The number and variety of 
choices for students making the tr
ansition to high school make 9
th grade students, both passive and active choosers, a good subject for this study. In addition, research indicates that 9th grade is an important transition year in 
that a successful transition to 9
th grade is highly correlated with high school graduation (Farrington et al., 2012).    45Section 2: Quantitative Methods Participants. 
Case study participants are all of the students in the District who were enrolled in the 8
th grade in the spring of 2012, a total of 10,348 students. All participants are included in the baseline descriptive analyses. A number of the partic
ipant group had left the district before the beginning of the 2012-13 school year or had been retained in 8th grade. Those students were excluded from the analyses e
xploring the relationship between DA and the 
transition to high school, leaving a total of 9,973 students. Also excluded are those students who were not enrolled in a regular high school (i.e., were in an alternative or other similar school) at 
the beginning of the study period in the fall of 2012, leaving 8,993 students in the final sample 
for analysis. 
 Based on their 8th grade data, nearly 88% of students in both the 8th grade sample and the 
analysis sample are economically disadvantaged. 
More than two-thirds are Hispanic or Latino, many first- or second-generation 
immigrants from Mexico. One-
quarter are Black or African American, and just under 4% are White. The remain
ing students are one of several other races or ethnicities. Not surprising with such a large immigrant population, those with limited English 
proficiency (LEP) make up nearly one-quarter of
 students. Just over 9% qualify for special education and about 15% qualify for talented and gifted (TAG) programs. 
Measures.Data sources. Student data were obtained from th
e District. All archival data were 
compiled by district employees, de-identified to
 protect student identity and received in 
electronic form. Data include demographic info
rmation (gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic 
status, and limited English proficiency), educatio
n information (special 
education eligibility, 
46talented and gifted program elig
ibility, attendance, and grade point average), and developmental 
asset survey (DAP) scores. See the DAP survey in Appendix B. 

 DAP survey scores provide data for the quantitative analysis. The DAP is a structured, 
self-report survey with closed questions, that is questions with specified answer choices. Such a survey efficiently collects data 
in a standardized way from a la
rge number of subjects and is 
easily analyzed with statistical methods (Somek
h & Lewin, 2008). The District administered the 
DAP to most 6
th through 12th grade students at their schools in May of 2012. Data from this survey administration, when the study participants were in 8
th grade, are used for all quantitative 
analyses.  The DAP, developed and tested by the Search Institute, measures the 40 developmental 
assets that are related to vari
ous youth thriving and success measur
es identified in the literature. 
Scale scores are reported for the eight categories 
and five contexts, and for the total, external, and internal asset aggregates. (The DAP does 
not measure individual assets.) The external 
aggregate score is an average of 
the four external category scores; 
the internal aggregate score is 
and average of the four internal 
category scores. External and internal scores are added together to provide the total asset aggregate score. Context scores are separately calculated, without regard to the category scores. External asse
ts are fithe positive experiences that young people 
receive from the people and institutions in their livesfl 
(Benson et al., 1999, p. 4). Internal assets are fiindividual qualitiesŠvalues, skills, and se
lf-perceptionsŠthought to help the young person 
become effectively self-regulati
ngfl (Scales et al., 2006, p. 693).   Survey questions ask for students™ perceptions of various aspects of and experiences in 
their lives. Responses are on a Likert-type scale with four choices, from finot at all or rarelyfl to fiextremely or almost always.fl Each question relates 
to a particular asset and so is scored in each 47category or context containing that asset as well as in total assets. Scale scores are reported for 
aggregated total, external, and internal assets and for each category and context. 
The DAP has been formulated for, and test
ed with, youth between the ages of 11 and 18, so the age range of students in this study, approximately 13 to 
16, is within the target range. (Validity of the DAP is discussed below.) Because 
it measures a wide range of intangible factors 
that may contribute to school success, the 
DAP has high potential for identifying important 
factors in student school persistence. In addition, the conceptualization of DA in this study matches the DAP™s definitions, maki
ng it the best available measure.
 Data collection procedures. 
All data for quantitative anal
ysis, including DAP survey scores and other student level data, were comp
iled from district reco
rds and provided to the researcher by the District. The 
data were provided pursuant to a request for specific data and 
several consultations with a District employee in the evaluation a
nd assessment department as to 
available data and formats. Requested data were 
pulled from district records and de-identified by 
the district employee, then compiled into an 
electronic data file which was provided to the researcher. Updates to that data file were provided in the same
 way over the course of the study period. DAP surveys were administered and scored
 by the District following procedures specified in the DAP user manual (Search Instit
ute, 2005). The provided data included only scale scores for aggregated assets, categories and contexts and did not include raw scores or individual item scores.  
Reliability and validity. 
A key consideration in interpreting the results of the DAP is the fact that it is a self-report survey. Respondents are asked to give their perceptions of the various 48developmental factors in their lives
, raising questions of the accuracy of the responses. This issue is discussed above in Chapter Two, but bears repeating here:   Though there are always questions about the accuracy of self-report data, such surveys 
on developmental factors have been found, in ge
neral, to be valid and reliable (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lerner et al., 2005; 2004). It may 
be that in this case perception is more 
meaningful than objective rea
lity. fiThe research shows that young people™s satisfaction with the support they receive is at least as important as the numbers of adults to whom 

they can turn for help (reviewed in Scales & Gibbons, 1996).fl (Scales & Leffert, 2004, p. 23) Thus, while it is important to remember that 
the DAP does not measure 
objective reality, what it 
does measureŠyoung people™s experience and percep
tions of factors operating in their livesŠis at least as relevant, even more relevant, to understanding the attitudes and behaviors of the respondents. People, after all, react to what they believe to be true, whether or not it is objectively so. The DAP grew out of the earlier and more ex
tensive Profiles of St
udent Life: Attitudes and Behaviors (A&B) survey. Work with both 
the A&B (Benson et al., 2011) and the DAP (Scales, 2011b; Search Institute, 2005) has shown th
at levels of assets correlate with various 
positive youth outcomes, including school success. In other words, as the asset level increases, so 

do school grades and other positive outcome measures. More than 3 million youth in the United 

States have been surveyed about the 40 Developmental Assets 
(Scales, 2011b). While the A&B 
survey has been used most often, since its intr
oduction in 2005, the DAP fiis utilized annually by hundreds of users, involving more than
 110,000 youth in 2009Œ2010 alonefl (Scales, 2011b, p. 493), though most studies are not published. The strong data and research base behind these survey instruments led to my choice of the DAP.
 As part of the development of the DAP, Search 
Institute researchers tested reliability with 
two field tests, one with 1,300 students in Minnesota and another with more than 1,130 students 
in Oregon (Search Institute, 2005).  Each test was conducted in a different state for better geographic, racial/ethnic, and asset level diversity. Participants
 completed both the A&B and the 
DAP, and 200 students in the first group took the DAP a second time two weeks later. Validity 
was tested on the data from the first, Minnesota, 
field test. Results are reported in detail in the 
DAP user manual (Search Institute, 2005) and user guide (Search Institute, 2014).  The field test data were tested for both internal and test-retest c
onsistency. Internal consistency was measured for each aggregate,
 category, and context with Cronbach™s alpha 
correlation coefficient. Survey items for each asse
t aggregateŠtotal assets, external assets, and 
internal assetsŠwere correlated at
 .92 or greater, indicating a very high degree of internal consistency. The component category and contex
t correlations were lower, though still strong, with nearly all at .80 or greater. The average internal correlation for the eight asset categories was .77 in the Oregon field test and .81 in Minnesota. For all but two categories, correlations ranged from .79 to .87.  
Empowerment was slightly lower at .74 and .77. 
Constructive use of time was much lower, 
below .60, which was expected because the items in
 that category cover different and unrelated activities. Overall, then, the eight asset categorie
s are highly internally consistent. For the five 
asset contexts, the average correlations were .86 and .88. The individual context coefficients ranged from .83 to .91, with minimal differences be
tween contexts. Overall, then, the five asset contexts are highly internally consistent. 
50Internal consistency was tested separately 
for males and females and for different ethnic 
groups and  fidid not vary significantly between groupsfl (Search Institute, 2005, pp. 33, 59-60). Since the time of the in
itial field tests, other studies with the DAP have been conducted in a number of states and countries. 
Internal consistency results from those studies are consistent with 
the field test results.6 Test-retest reliability was measured for each aggregate, category, and context with the 
product-moment correlation coefficient. Two hundr
ed students in the Minnesota field test completed the DAP survey a second time two w
eeks after the first. Correlations for the aggregates ranged from .84 to .87. The average co
rrelation for the eight asset categories was .79, with individual category scores from .74 to .84. Individual context correlations ranged from .78 
to .87. Overall, then, two-week test-retest cons
istency was strong. The results were similar for 
females versus males and younger (grades 6-8) 
vs older (grades 9-12) students. Though the differences were small, correlations were 
significantly higher for females versus males 
(differences from .12 to .03) and for younger (gra
des 6-8) versus older (grades 9-12) students (differences from .01 to .08) on 13 of the 16 scales.  
As described in the review of the literature 
(Chapter Two), definitions and measures of 
developmental assets and related concepts 
are still evolving. There are few measures of 
developmental assets against which to test the DA
P other than the Search Institute A&B survey  
(Search Institute, 2005). In tests of convergent validity, the results of the DAP generally correlated well with similar A&B items and asset 
levels. DAP asset levels also related positively 
with A&B thriving factors and negatively with risk behaviors, as expected.                                                   6 Internal consistency was measured for surveys including a total of 3,742 students in eight statesŠCalifornia, Ohio, 
Texas, South Carolina, Maryland, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Co
lorado. According to the Search Institute, fiStudies in 
other countries with language adaptations have yielded similar resultsfl (2014, p. 40). 
51Convergent validity was measur
ed by analyzing the relationship between DAP measures 
and corresponding A&B measures separately ca
lculated for four comparisons. First, the 
correlation between the DAP total asset score and the total number of assets from the A&B 

survey indicated a strong linear relationship: r = .82 and .76, p<.001 for the two field trials. Second, the mean differences in DAP total a
sset score by numbers of A&B assets showed a strong linear relationship between the DAP and the A&B. As the number of assets increased, 
mean DAP scores increased systematically. And 
when the number of A&B assets were placed in 
four rangesŠ0-10, 11-20, 21-30, and 31-40 assetsŠthe ranges corresponded with the DAP interpretive rangesŠLow, Fair, Good, Excellent.  Third, reversing the previous comparison, the 
mean differences in number of A&B assets 
was compared to the DAP score ranges. The differe
nces were similar and statistically significant, 
F(3, 1178) = 668.3, p<.001. Fourth, the relationships between DAP scores and risk behaviors, academic performance, and thriving as measured by the A&B were analyzed. The results were as 
would be expected if the two surveys measure 
the same things, with the same direction and 
virtually identical magnitude. The DAP aggregate 
scoresŠtotal, external, and internal assetsŠ
were positively correlated with thriving (r values from 0.60 to 0.68, p<.001) and negatively 
correlated with risk behaviors (r values from -0.40 to -
0.51, p<.001). Finally, the positive identity category was compared with the overlap
ping and widely researched concept of self-esteem as measured by two widely used measures. Positive identity scores correlated  positively 

with Rosenberg™s Self-Esteem Scale (.70) and 
with Harter™s Global Self-Worth Scale (.72), fiindicating significant convergencefl (Search Institute, 2005, p. 40). Criterion validity is difficult 
to assess because there are 
as yet no accepted criteria for 
comparison with the DAP. The Search Institute ad
ministered the DAP to 
students in two middle 
52schools in the same school district
, one that was consistently regarded as more fiasset-richfl than the other. A comparison of survey scores for th
e asset-rich school were fisignificantly higher on every DAP scalefl (Search Institute, 2005, p. 40).  Though the field test samples were some
what diverse, they are not broadly representative. Norms based on a re
presentative national sample ar
e not yet available (P. Scales, 
personal communication, Novemb
er 14, 2012; Search Institute
, 2005). Testing with other samples is ongoing, and the results of this study, 
with a large sample of low-income, urban, 
minority youth will contribute to
 the available information. 
 Data analysis. Quantitative data analysis examin
es the research questions: (1) the differences in developmental assets between active choosers and passive choosers and (2) the relationship between developmental 
assets and school persistence.  Logistic regression analysis is used for both questions. For the first question, choice, the relationship between DA and whether a student is an active or passive chooser in October 2012 is analyzed. For the second question, persistence, the relationship betw
een DA and whether a student stays or leaves his or her choice school between October 2012 and October 2013 is analyzed. 
Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics give a pictur
e of the distribution of the DAP aggregated assets, categories and contexts among 
the sample students, as well as relationships 
among assets. In addition, correlations are calcul
ated between DA and student characteristics, including commonly used indicators such as race and economic disadvantage (free and reduced price lunch eligibility) as well as additional factor
s that the literature indicates are related to 
school success (e.g. GPA).  53Choice and persistence: logistic regression. Multiple regression controls for the simultaneous influence of other determinants of 
both student choice and persistence other than DA. Logistic regression is appropriate because th
e dependent variables, persistence and choice, 
are binary (a student either did or did not persist or is a passive or active chooser), rather than continuous. Choice is estimated at the beginning 
of the study period. Persistence is estimated 
from October 2012 to October 2013. The model is sepa
rately estimated for a
ggregated assets and for asset categories and contexts. Figure 2 shows the logistic regression 
models for choice and persistence.
 DA (scale score) is the independent variable. Control variables that may have an 
independent impact on the dependent variable 
(choice or persistence) are also included as 
independent variables in the estimated models. Those include 
student: gender, race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, LEP, 
special education status, and TAG eligibility. Data are not available for other possible covariates, including family attributes
 such as one- or two-parents, and influence of siblings, and neighborhood, but they are likely reflected to a great extent in the measures of DA. A review of school data indi
cates that all but a few schools have similar 
proportions of economically disa
dvantaged (FRPL) students. Separate analyses test total assets and then
 explore different aggregates, categories and contexts to determine whether specific asset types 
are especially significant 
predictors of student persistence.    54 Figure2.Logistic
RegressionModels:
ChoiceandPersistence
 ChoiceModel
(1) Logit(Choicei)=0+1DAi+StDem
i+StAcadiEquation
1isestimated
attimet1 PersistenceModel
(2) Logit(=0+1DAi+StDem
i+StAcad
i+ZStSchl9
i
Equation
2isestimated
attimet2Where:Allvariablesareforspring2012Š8thgrade
yearŠunlessotherwisenoted.
Choicei=whetherstudent
iisanactive
(=1)orpassive(=0)chooseratthebeginning
of9thgrade.
=schoolpersistence:
whetherstudentistayedinschooljforduration
N,where
N=October
2012toOctober2013
DAi=developmentalassetsmeasureforstudent
i(continuous).
StDem
i=avectorofstudentdemographic
characteristicsofstudenti,including
gender
(dummy),
economicallydisadvantaged
(free
andreduced
price
lunch;
dummy),
limited
Englishproficiency
(dummy),
race/ethnicity
(dummy),
andspecial
education(dummy);
corresponding
estimates
areincludedinthe
vector.StAcad
i=avector
ofacademic
performance
indicators
ofstudent
i,including
talented
andgifted
(dummy)
andgradepointaverage(continuous);corresponding
estimates
areincluded
inthe
vector.StSchl9
i=avector
oftheschoolattendedbystudentiatthebeginning
of9thgrade,
corresponding
estimatesareincluded
inthevectorZ.Allvariablesaredefined
inTable
3.   55Table3.Variables
inthe
Logistic
Regression
Models
Focus
variableValuesCommentsDevelopmental
Assets(DA)
ContinuousValuesareallcontinuous
scalescoresTotalAssets060InternalandExternal
assetstogetherequalTotal
assetsInternalAssets030Attributes
ofthe
studentCommitment
tolearning
030Positivevalues030Socialcompetencies030Positiveidentity
030ExternalAssets
030Attributes
ofthe
student™ssocialenvironmentSupport030Empowerment
030Boundaries
andexpectations030Constructive
use
oftime030ContextsContext
s together equal Total assets; 
EachisacombinationofcertainExternal
andInternalassets.Personal030Social030Family030School030Community
030   
ControlVariables
ValuesCommentsStudentDemographicCharacteristics
(StDem)Race/ethnicityDummy:
Yes=1Black/African
American;
Hispanic/Latino;
White;OtherHispanic/Latino
isthereferencecategory.GenderDummy:
Female=1SpecialEducationeligible
Dummy:
Yes=1Economically
disadvantagedDummy:
Yes=1Eligible
for
free/reduced
pricelunchLimited
English
proficiency
(LEP)Dummy:
LEP=1AsmeasuredbyDistrictlanguage
proficiency
test.Studentacademicperformance
(StAcad)8thgradeGPAContinuous:0100ResearchindicatesthatGPAisapredictorofschoolsuccess.Talentedandgiftedeligible
(TAG)Dummy:
Yes=1Studentinitial9thgradeschoolDummy:
Yes=1Eachof38schools(persistencemodel)ChoiceDummy:
Active=1
(persistencemodel)Note.Differentcombinations
ofdevelopmental
assetsfromtheDAP.All
scoresarescalescores,
calculatedfromtherawsurveyscores.Theliteratureindicates
thatdevelopmental
assetsarepositivelycorrelatedwithschoolsuccess
indicatorssuchasGPAandgraduation.56GPA: linear regression. Prior research shows that students™ grade point averages (GPAs) are 
positively related to 
the level of their developmental assets. To 
better understand the relationship between DA and GPA, a standard linear regression model, presented in Figure 3, is used to show how well DA predict 9
th grade GPA, controlling for 8th grade GPA.        Figure3.Linear
RegressionModel:
GPAGPAModel
(3)GPA9i=0+1GPA8i+2DAi+3Choicei+4Schl9
i+StDem
iEquation
3isestimated
attimet2.Where:GPA9i=the9thgradeGPAforstudent
iGPA8i=the8thgradeGPAforstudent
iDAi=developmentalassetsmeasureforstudent
iChoicei=whetherstudent
iisanactive
(=1)orpassive(=0)chooseratthebeginning
of9thgrade
Schl9i=the9thgradeschool
ofstudentiatt1StDem
i=avectorofstudentdemographic
characteristicsofstudenti,including
gender,
economicallydisadvantaged
(free
andreduced
price
lunch),
limited
Englishproficiency,race/ethnicity,
andspecial
education;estimates
areincluded
inthe
vector57Section 3: Qualitative Methods.
 Phenomenographic methodology explores the liv
ed experience of human beings with 
regard to particular phenomena. Data, usually
 from interviews, include the individual™s perceptionsŠhow each one fiapprehends the phenomenafl (Somekh & Lewin, 2008, p. 347)Šof 

their school experience. The bio-ecological theory of human 
development posits that human 
beings are affected by their experience of their 
environment, including people, institutions, and 
settings, and that they in turn affect their environment in a continuous, bi-directional interactive 
loop. The narrow focus of a quantitative analysis
 can shed light only on some aspects of the 
human experience. A phenomenograhic perspectiv
e, where interview questions elicit multiple 
facets of the lived experience of
 the participant, can add dept
h and breadth to understanding the 
complexity that surrounds the quantitative data.  
Participants. 
A stratified purposeful, sample of fi
ve students from the quantitative 
analysis was chosen to test the theory of the 
relationship between DA and choice and persistence. 
Students were identified from demographic, sc
hool, and DAP score data.  Students to be considered for interviews were 8th graders in the spring of 2012 who were 10th graders in the fall of 2013, have a DAP score in at least one category, and are active choosers of their 9th grade school. Only 90 students left a choice school (other than a comprehensive high school) for another school during the study period. At the time of the interviews, these students were enrolled in more than 25 schools across the District. Ten students initially agreed to interviews and I was able to interview five of them. 
The five students met the sample criteria. 
All are active choosers. Three are stayers and two are leavers, one to a choice school program and the other to
 a comprehensive high school.  
Their DAP scores range from low to high, with 
the two leavers primarily in the low and fair 
58categories and the three stayers primarily in the good to exce
llent categories. Table 4 shows the asset score levels7 among the interviewed students. 
Table4.Total
AssetLevelsofStudentsInterviewed
DAPtotalscore
rangeStayersLeaversExcellent51601Good
41502Fair31401Low0301 Despite numerous letters, e-mails, and phone ca
lls to several school officials and a large number of parents, I was unabl
e to interview a student whose persistence and DAP scores 
contradicted my hypotheses. Findings are to 
be considered in light of that fact.  Measures. Data sources and data collection procedures. Semi-structured interview ques
tions expand on the quantitative results by exploring in depth how each student perceives her or his 9
th grade school experience in 
relation to persistence. 
The interview protocol is included in Appendix C. The primary source of data for the qualitat
ive analysis is student interviews. The 
interview data are supplemented with the stud
ent demographic and e
ducation data and DAP scores used in the quantitative analysis. (See that section, above, for a description of collection procedures.)                                                  7 The Search Institute divides DAP category scores into f
our levels. I have approximated those levels for the DAP 
total asset score, which has a high score of 60 while the high score for each category is 30.   
59Each interviewed student provided a signed parental consent and student assent form. 
Some forms were distributed at 
the students™ school and others were mailed to parents/guardians 
with a letter requesting particip
ation and consent. (Appendix D is the consent/assent form and 
Appendix E is the consent request letter.) Both the consent and request letter forms were 
available in both Spanish and English. To encourage return of consent forms, students were 
offered a $10 gift card if chosen for interviews.   
 Reliability and validity.
8 Prior research shows that non-cognitive factors are important, if 
not vital, to a student™s ability to persist and succeed in school (Farrington et al., 2012). My experience in various human and human service 
contexts supports this finding. Expanding on resilience research, I am inclined to believe th
at students who persist and succeed in actively chosen schools and programs differ in meaningf
ul ways from demographically similar peers who 
do not. Those differences impact student resilien
ce and the likelihood of beating the odds against success. This belief might cause bias in how I 
conduct and interpret the study data, particularly the interview data. To counter this possible bias, throughout data collection and analysis I made 
conscious efforts to be cognizant of and minimi
ze its effects, returning frequently to the interview data to check my developing conclusions.  For those participants who were interviewed, interview results and survey results were 
compared for consistency. In addi
tion, interviews probed the results of the survey generally as 
well as for the individual subject. The reasons for any apparent discrepancies were carefully considered and recorded. Results are consider
ed in light of the small sample size.   
The first analysis of the interviews used a grounded theory approach to consider results that might contradict theory as
 well as new areas not covered by current theory. As I compiled 
and wrote the results, I returned to the transcripts many time
s to check the support for my 
                                                 8 For a discussion of the reliability and validity of the 
DAP survey instrument, see Section 2 of this chapter. 
 60conclusions, which sometimes led to revisions. Al
l interviews were recorded and transcribed. Written records were kept of the process of analyzing interview data, including coding, decision 

criteria, issues considered, and development of theory.  
Data analysis. The qualitative data analysis is both inductive and theory-driven. It provides a deeper and broader understanding of the relationship between developmental assets 
and school persistence. Interview data analysis followed a three-step process. First, I applied an inductive approach using grounded theory principles (without regard to a-priori theory or my 
hypothesis) to look for common per
ceptions in the students™ statements. In the initial review I noted statements that indicated factors that student
s believed helped them to persist, or not, in 
their chosen school. Based on that review, I identified preliminary 
themes that were consistently 
discussed by all of the students and coded student
 statements in all inte
rviews accordingly (open 
coding). That coding resulted in different types of statementsŠe
lementsŠthat were organized 
around the preliminary themes.  
Review of the coded responses led to a refinement of the elements, re-organizing the 
statements into common categories and refini
ng the themes to better reflect the students™ 
perceptions as to key factors in their school persistence (axial coding). Finally, I looked for further relationships among the themes in or
der to consolidate them around a central point 
(selective coding). In this process, I identified two central points, rather than one, and connected the themes to those two primary topics. The resul
ting theoretical framework is described in detail 
below in Chapter Five: Qualitative Results. In th
e second step, data were organized a priori 
around factors derived from the literature, partic
ularly from positive youth development theory 
as defined though the developmental assets fr
amework, as expressed in Hypothesis 3:  
 The nature of relationships with adults and/or peers at school;  61 The level of parental or other adult support and encouragement;  
 The level of engagement in the work;  
 The existence or lack of extracurricular activities;   Feeling safe or unsafe;   Understanding of and ability to comply with school rules;  
 Preparation for college or chosen career; 
 Bonding with or pride in the school; and   Feeling competent or incompetent to do the work and succeed.  
Interview transcripts were again reviewed and coded for these factors and student statements 
were organized around them. The results were then
 compared to those of the inductive analysis 
described above, differences noted, and the inductive theory revised accordingly. Third, interview data were further analyzed to 
reveal or contrast salient factors from the 
quantitative analysis. DA found to have a significant relationship with school persistence were considered in light of the key factors and themes 
identified in the inductive and a priori analyses in order to adjust or confirm the results. Because 
all relevant factors were 
already reflected in the 
framework, no adjustments were made for these data. 
For all three steps, where appropriate, analysis followed a constant comparative method, 
where data, themes, and categories were conti
nuously reviewed and adjusted throughout the analysis process.  
  62Section 4: Limitations 
This case study is limited to one grade in one 
school district over a relatively short time 
period. The students in the sample are overwhelm
ingly poor (87.7% eligible for free or reduced price lunch), and of racial or ethnic minority (68.1% Hispanic/L
atino and 25.6% Black/African American, with only 3.8% White). 
While large urban school districts in the U.S. tend to be poor and of racial or ethnic minorit
y, each district has a uni
que demographic profile. Results, then, are 
informative but not necessarily gene
ralizable to other urban settings. As with all of the studies on developmental assets, the results of th
is study are correlational, not causal.  Interviews explore how a small number of 
students individually experience choosing and attending a particular choice school. These experiences are unique
 to each student so are not generalizable. At the same time, the interviewed st
udents are not atypical and their perceptions of their experience can provide insights into the developmental factors that might matter to other 
students in other schools.   63Chapter Four: Quantitative Results Section 1: Introduction and Overview  
 One purpose of this study is to better understand why some disadvant
aged students beat the odds against their success in school by analyzing what leads students to choose, or not choose, particular schools and how they persist in those schools. This chapter describes the results of the quantitative analyses of school choice and persistence. Recognizing that the complexity of influences on human developmen
t, including developmental assets, makes it 
virtually impossible to make causal inferences, 
these results are correlational, not causal (with 
the possible exception of the GPA analysis). They do, however, give some insights into the likely 
influences on two school success measures that ca
n help to direct future research efforts. 
The key predictor variables are combinations
 of the 40 developmental assetsŠfive asset 
contexts, eight asset categories, and total, external
, and internal aggregates of the categories. All are defined in Chapter 3: Methods, and in Table 2 and Appendix A.  Presentation of the results begins in Section 2 with descriptive statistics of the 
characteristics of the participants, distribution of DAP assets among the participants, and the 
relationships among the asset catego
ries and contexts.  Section 3 presents the logistic regression results for the analysis of the influence of DA on whether a student is an active or passive school chooser and Section 4 presents the results for the influence of DA on school persistence. To further investigate a point raised by the choice an
d persistence analyses, Section 5 presents the 
linear regression results for 
the influence of DA on 9th grade GPA. Section 6 gives a brief summary of the quantitative results and their connection to the qualitative results that follow. 
   64Section 2: Descriptive Statistics 
Student characteristics and DAP scores. 
In the spring of 2012, a total of 10,348 eighth grade students were enrolled in the school district. Among 
them, as shown in Table 5, poverty levels are high, with nearly 90% of participants eligible for free or reduced price lunch (FRPL). This high rate of economically disadvantaged students is consistent with high rates in many 
large, urban school districts in all parts of the country. The racial and ethnic make-up is
 typical of school districts in southwestern and some southern states, where large numbers of immigr
ants from Mexico and other Latin American 
countries have settled and continue to arrive. That population is growing in other parts of the country as well. Reflecting the Southwest loca
tion and the District population, more than two 
thirds of these eighth graders identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino. Black or African-
American is the next largest group with one quart
er of students, while White students are less 
than 4%. Not surprising given the high proportion of Hispanic students, nearly one quarter of all 8th grade students (one third of Hispanic students) are identified as having limited English 
proficiency (LEP). Another one-quarter had successfully exited the district™s bilingual program. 
Distribution of student characteristicsŠeconomic disadvantage (FRPL), LEP, special 
education (SPED), and talented and gifted (T
AG)Šbetween male and female and between the 
different race/ethnic groups is generally similar to the distribution for all participants. Noticeable 
differences are evident in the substantially lower proportion of White students who qualify for 
free or reduced lunch (39.7% versus 87.7% for all) and the substantially higher proportion of White students eligible for TAG programs (31.2% 
versus 14.9% for all). Given the historic White flight from the district a
nd rather small number of
 White students overall, this may be an 
indication that a large number of those who do stay in the district do so because of the available TAG programs, including magnet schools. 
65A much higher proportion of Black students are 
in special education (14.0% versus 9.3%) and a lower proportion eligible for TAG program
s (10.8% versus 14.9%). The special education numbers are consistent with c
oncerns nationally that Black students are over-identified for special education. It is impossible to say whether this is the case or if there are other reasons for the higher Black identification rate. White students also have a higher proportion of special education students than either Hispanic or othe
r races, though still well below that for Black 
students.  Table5.Student
Characteristics
(all8thgraders,
N=10,348)
VariablesAllStudents
GenderRace/ethnicity
FemaleMaleHispanicBlackWhiteOtherN10,348
5,037
5,311
7,044
2,650
398
256
FRPL87.7
87.4
87.9
90.0
89.2
39.7
80.9
Gender
Female
48.7
  48.7
48.3
50.0
50.4
Male51.3
  51.3
51.7
50.0
49.6
Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic/Latino
68.1
68.1
68.1

Black/African
American
25.6
25.4
25.8
    White3.84.03.7    Other2.52.62.4    LEP24.1
23.8
24.4
33.5
1.42.533.6
SpecialEd9.36.611.8
7.514.0
9.87.4TAG14.9
17.0
12.9
15.3
10.8
31.2
19.1
 The DAP survey was administered in the sp
ring of the eighth grade year. There was a high rate of non-response. Less than two- thirds of the participants have complete DAP scores. The remaining students have either partial sc
ores or no scores at all. For the full 8th grade sample, 
Table 6 compares characteristics of the student
s with complete DAP scores and those with no 
scores to the characteristics of all participants.  
66  
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The sample for the choice and persistence anal
yses is a subset of those students with complete DAP scores. First, the sample is limited 
to only those students enrolled in a regular (not alternative) high school on October 29, 2012. That is the date that enrollment data are reported to the state and a date by which enrollment is fairly 
stable. It is used as the beginning date for the choice and persistence analyses that follow. For 
choice, whether a student is a passive or active 
chooser is determined as of at that time. For 
persistence, whether a student changes schools or stays in the same school is based on 
the enrolled school at that time.   
Of the 8th grade sample, 8,993 students were enrolled 
in a regular district high school in the fall of their 10
th grade year. Of those, 5,622 had complete DAP scores and the remaining 
3,371 had no scores (3,236) or partial scores (135). For purposes of the analyses, the students Table6.Student
Characteristics
byDAPCompletionfor
Spring2012
8thGrade
Students
(N=10,348)CharacteristicsDAPscores
Allstudents
CompleteNoscoreaN%N%N%All10,348
100.0
6,263
60.5
4,085
39.5
FRPL9,071
87.7
5,404
86.3
3,667
89.8
Gender
Female
5,037
48.7
3,159
50.4
1,878
46.0
Male5,311
51.3
3,104
49.6
2,207
54.0
Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic/Latino
7,044
68.1
4,243
67.7
2,801
68.6
Black/African
American
2,650
25.6
1,551
24.8
1,099
26.9
White398
3.8294
4.7104
2.5Other256
2.5175
2.8812.0LEP2,495
24.1
1,419
22.7
1,076
26.3
SpecialEd959
9.3456
7.3503
12.3
TAG1,538
14.9
1,110
17.7
428
10.5
aStudents
withpartialscores
(1.5%)
aretreated
asnoscores.
67with partial scores 
are included with those who have no scores.9 The sample, then, consists of 
5,622 students in a regular high school in the fall of 2012 and who have complete DAP survey scores.10  Table 7 compares the students with and without complete DAP scores on a variety of 
demographic characteristics. Students with comp
lete DAP scores are less likely to come from 
low-income families, to be White, to have limited English proficiency, or be eligible for special 

education services. They are more likely to receiv
e talented and gifted services than those with 
incomplete DAP scores. Although this research fo
cuses on students with complete DAP scores, a 
variety of efforts were taken to analyze the possible effects of missi
ng DAP scores, including imputation of missing scores for students wit
hout them.  These results are summarized in 
Appendix F.  The results for both the choice and persistence models were substantially unchanged with the expansion of the sample to
 include students with imputed DAP scores. 
Distribution of DAP scores among participants. DAP scores, except the total score, are 
scaled from 0 to 30. Because the total score is 
the sum of the aggregate external and internal 
scores, the total score values range from 0 to 
60. A higher score implies higher assets. Table 8 
shows the mean DAP scores for each DAP aggregate, category and context. The means for the 

external and internal aggregate scores are virtually identical, though the score range for individual categories is greater for external assets. Noteworthy differences are the low scores for 
constructive use of time and the community cont
ext, and the particularly high score for the 
family context.  
                                                  9 A very small percentage of students (1.5%) had partially 
complete scores. To simplify the analysis students with 
partial scores are included in the 
fino scorefl group for all analyses. 
 10 An additional 11 students have missing values for othe
r variables besides DAP scores, which excludes them from 
the analysis.68 Table7.Student
Characteristics
byDAPCompletionfor
Fall20129thGrade
Students
(N=8,993)CharacteristicsDAPscores
Allstudents
CompleteNoscoreaN%N%N%All8,993
100.0
5,622
62.5
3,371
37.5
FRPL7,931
88.2
4,874
86.7
3,057
90.7***
Gender
Female
4,442
49.4
2,854
50.8
1,588
47.1**
Male4,551
50.6
2,768
49.2
1,783
52.9**
Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic/Latino
6,300
70.1
3,915
69.6
2,385
70.8
Black/African
American
2,147
23.9
1,310
23.3
837
24.8
White319
3.5242
4.3772.3***Other227
2.5155
2.8722.1LEP2,184
24.3
1,296
23.1
888
26.3***
SpecialEd823
9.2406
7.2417
12.4***
TAG1,432
15.9
1,038
18.5
394
11.7***
Mean8thgradeGPA82.06

83.03

80.41
aStudents
withpartialscores(1.5%)
aretreated
asnoscores.
Note.ttestshowsgroup
means
significantly
different
at:*p.05.**p.01.***p.001
 Most of the aggregate, category, and context asset scores are roughly normally 
distributed. (Appendix G displays histograms for all DAP scores.)
 The family context scores 
have by far the highest mean and the most skewed distribution, with values clustered at the high end of possible scores.   69 Table8.Mean
DAPScoresofStudentswith
CompleteScores(N=5,622)
VariablesMeanSDTotalAssets41.88
9.525
Externalaggregate
and
categories
External
20.92
5.199
Support
21.89
5.997
Empowerment
20.87
5.683
Boundaries
&Expectations
21.71
5.652
UseofTime18.65
7.259
Internalaggregate
and
categories
Internal
20.96
4.860
CommitmenttoLearning
20.28
6.048
PositiveValues20.65
5.304
SocialCompetencies
21.03
5.381
PositiveIdentity
21.42
5.681
ContextsPersonal21.38
4.797
Social21.09
5.229
Family23.56
5.735
School20.15
5.916
Community18.68
5.896
 Table 9 shows mean values for each component
 DAP asset by student characteristic.  As 
would be expected, asset levels are not the same for students with different demographic 
characteristics.11 Boys have consistently lower mean DAP scores than girls, sometimes 
substantially lower. Interestingly, boys nevertheless score higher in some asset categories, 
including positive identity and constructive use of
 time. The differences in many, though not all, 
DAP scores between boys and girls are significant. The largest si
gnificant differences, more than one point, are in social competencies (higher for girls) and positive identity (the only 
                                                 11 The gender and racial/ethnic differences here are genera
lly consistent with the results from the much larger 
sample reported by Search Institute researchers in the second edition of the 
Fragile Foundation 
(Benson et al., 2011). 
70significantly higher DAP score for boys). Boys also have a substantially and significantly lower mean GPA than girls. 
In comparing mean DAP scores across raci
al/ethnic groups, two patterns are apparent: the consistently higher scores for Black students and consistently lower scores for Hispanic 
students. Black students™ high asse
t scores, substantially higher (more than one point) in several instances, are in contrast to their mean GPA, which is the lowest 
of the four racial/ethnic groups. Positive identity stands out as a particularly hi
gh score for Black students, nearly two points 
higher than the next highest (for Hispanics) and even higher than for all boys.   White students have few highest or lowest DAP scores with
 few significant differences. With one exceptionŠthe social competencies
 categoryŠall of the DAP score differences between White students and Black and Hispanic 
students are significant. Interestingly, White 
students™ social competencies score is the highes
t, by more than one point
, and is significantly different compared to the other racial/ethnic groups combine
d. The same is true, though the 
difference is smaller, for White students™ pos
itive values score. Though White students™ DAP scores overall are no different, their mean GPA is significantly highe
r, by more than two points, 
than the mean GPA of the 
other racial/ethnic groups.                     71 Table9.Mean
DAPScoresofStudentsbyCharacteristics
ofStudents
withCompleteScores
(N=5,622)VariablesGender
aRace/ethnicity
b
FRPLcFemaleMaleHispanic
Black
WhiteOthercLEPcSPEDcTAGcNd4,8742,8542,7683,9151,3102421551,2964061,038GPA
(8thgrade)
82.6684.2981.73***83.1381.51***87.94***85.8680.6078.2587.75Totalassetse41.7942.1341.62*41.15***43.90***42.6442.1041.0641.5442.80External20.8821.0120.8220.53***22.02***21.1220.9620.6120.7121.18Support21.9321.9921.8621.68***22.77***21.5021.5722.0021.4821.82Empowerment20.8020.9620.7920.64***21.46***21.5020.9420.6120.2021.22Boundaries&Expectations21.7221.9721.45**21.57**22.18**21.5721.7121.6221.4621.99UseofTime18.5718.6418.6717.74***21.19***19.4619.0317.7219.3519.21Internal20.9021.1120.81*20.62***21.87***21.5221.1420.4520.8321.61CommitmenttoLearning20.2220.6919.85***19.66***21.84***20.8721.8519.5520.5621.12Positive
Values20.5721.0020.29***20.34***21.31***21.70**21.1920.3620.6021.19SocialCompetencies
20.8921.5220.52***20.9920.9522.26***20.6220.5920.3322.16Positive
Identity21.4720.7822.08***21.01***22.89***20.65*20.4620.8421.3321.50Contexts
Personal
21.3621.2921.4721.01***22.45***21.6521.2620.8921.1921.71Social20.9921.4720.70***20.92***21.48**21.85*20.9820.8420.5422.02Family23.5823.6823.4223.35***24.28***23.2523.1323.5222.7623.47School20.1220.4119.87**19.86***20.95***19.6121.4219.8920.3320.83Community18.5818.8818.47*18.13***20.01***20.24***18.9018.2219.0619.12aSignificance
levels
forMaleareincomparison
toFemale.bSignificance
levels
foreach
groupareincomparisontoallotherracial/ethnic
groups.cSignificance
ofdifferenceswasnotestimatedfor
thesegroups.
dNissmaller
(byless
than0.5%)forsomeoftheGPAresults.eTotalassetscoresare
onascale
of0to60;theotherscores
areonascale
of0to30.Note.ttestshowsgroupmeans
significantly
differentat:*p.05.**p.01.***p.001                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                72Relationships among asset aggregate, category, and context scores. Tables 10 and 11 show Pearson correlations among the DAP asset cat
egories and contexts, respectively. All DAP categories in Table 10 are positivel
y and significantly correlated (p < .01), with values ranging from .481 to .950.  Students who rate highly in one t
ype of asset tend to rate higher in all of the other assets as well.  In no case do we observe certain assets being negatively related to other types of assets. The strength of the correlation among asset categories does vary. The correlation between boundaries and expectations and support is the strongest (.823).  This relationship reflects the likelihood that those interested enough to provide advice and support to a student would also establish guidelines and monitor the student™s activities.  Constructive use of time, 
meanwhile, appears to be somewhat distinctive as 
it is more weakly correlated to other assets.  
The correlations between use of time and positive identity, social competencies, and boundaries 
and expectations are all below 0.5.  Even though the aggregate DAP measures are de
rived directly from the scores of asset 
categories and not with reference to asset context scores, Table 11 
shows that all asset contexts nevertheless have significant positive correlations with the aggregate measures.  Whether 

measured as categories or contexts, diverse type
s of students™ assets te
nd to move together.  
Among the asset contexts, the strongest correlati
on is between the social and personal contexts (.791). This implies that personal at
tributes are also very important 
in relationships with others.  Interestingly, the weakest correlations are 
between the family cont
ext and the school and community contexts. Despite being positively relate
d, this suggests that assets associated with 
students™ families are somewhat loosely related to those associated with two other important 

settings in their lives: their schools and communities.
73   Table10.Correlation
ofScores
in8DAPCategoriesandAggregated
Totals
(N=6418a)DAPassetTotalExternalInternalSupport
Empowerment
Boundaries
&expectations
UseoftimeCommitmenttolearningPositivevaluesSocialcompetencies
PositiveidentityAggregated
scores
TotalŒExternal.950**Œ
Internal.943**.794**ŒExternalcategories
Support
.820**.885**.662**Œ
Empowerment
.834**.851**.724**.702**Œ
Boundaries
&expectations
.837**.879**.701**.823**.715**Œ
Useoftime.731**.771**.609**.516**.510**.493**Œ
Internalcategories
Commitmenttolearning.807**.664**.872**.549**.576**.600**.526**Œ
Positivevalues.868**.756**.891**.612**.672**.654**.621**.722**Œ
Socialcompetencies
.817**.676**.879**.564**.630**.618**.492**.686**.761**ŒPositiveidentity.782**.665**.821**.576**.642**.568**.481**.597**.628**.621**ŒaNincludesstudents
withpartialscoresandthosewithcomplete
scores;Ndiffersforeach
DAPaggregate,category,
andcontext
andrangesfrom6,263
to6,410.**p.01.74  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Table11.Correlation
ofScores
in5DAPContextsand
AggregatedTotals(N=6418a)DAPscore
groups
TotalExternalInternalPersonalSocialFamilySchoolCommunityAggregated
scores
TotalŒ
External.950**Œ
Internal.943**.794**Œ
ContextsPersonal.876**.738**.928**Œ
Social.908**.811**.911**.791**Œ
Family.803**.848**.665**.652**.667**Œ
School.835**.783**.801**.696**.740**.583**ŒCommunity.864**.860**.775**.664**.749**.583**.646**ŒaNincludes
studentswithpartial
scoresandthosewithcomplete
scores;NdiffersforeachDAP
aggregate,
category,
andcontext
andrangesfrom6,263
to6,410.
**p.01. 75Section 3: The Relationship between Developmental Assets and School Choice 
To address hypothesis 1, that active choosers have higher developmental assets (DA) 
than passive choosers, I perform a 
statistical analysis of the District student-level data. Whether a 
student is a passive or active chooser is based on the school in which that student was enrolled on the date in October that the school district reported attendance to the state. As described earlier, the sample is limited to those 5,622 students with complete DAP scores. 
The relationship between developmental assets and school choice is tested using logistic regressions to estimate models with different co
mbinations of asset aggregates, categories, and contexts as independent variables. All models c
ontrol for a range of student characteristics that 
may affect school choiceŠgender, race/ethnicity, 
socioeconomic status (FRPL), limited English 
proficiency, and special education status.  Students™ academic performance in 8
th grade may also affect the likelihood that they 
actively choose their 9
th grade schools, especially since some 9
th grade schools are designated for academically stronger students.  Tw
o variables capture students™ 8
th grade academic standing:  
their GPA and whether they are eligible for TAG programs. Yet previous research also suggests 
that developmental assets affect academic outco
mes (Scales et al., 2000; Scales et al., 2006).  
Consequently the developmental asset and academic
 variables are not strictly independent in the 
choice models.  As a first step in addressing 
this, I run each of the 
choice models with and 
without the academic variables. I w
ill return later, in Section 5 of this chapter, to examine the 
influence of developmental asse
ts on the academic variables.  
The developmental assets were introduced 
sequentially into the 
choice model progressing 
from aggregate to disaggregated, focusing first on 
asset categories and then asset contexts. The  
 
 76eight specifications of the DAP scores are: 
1. Total assets (aggregate) 
2. Aggregate external and internal asset categories 
3. Aggregate external assets (category) 
4. Aggregate internal assets (category) 
5. External asset categories (four) 
6. Internal asset 
categories (four) 7. External categories and internal categories (eight categories from 5 and 6, above) 
8. Asset contexts (five) 
The primary focus is on specifications 7 and 8, but the other models provide useful 
framing for them. Table 12 presents the results of
 the choice models using for the aggregate DAP measures. Table 13 presents the results 
for the DAP categories and contexts.    77   Table12.Likelihood
ofActivevs.PassiveSchoolChoice:DAPAggregates
(N=5,611)
TotalDAP
ExternalandInternal
ExternalInternal
Variables
With
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYes
DAPtotal0.017***
0.002

(0.003)
(0.004)

1.017
1.002


External
0.028**
0.014
0.020**
0.001

0.010
(0.011)
(0.006)
(0.007)

0.973
0.986
1.020
1.001

Internal

0.065***
0.021
+0.041***
0.009

(0.011)
(0.012)
(0.007)
(0.007)

1.067
1.021
1.042
1.009

Gender0.346***
0.030
0.341***
0.031
0.350***
0.030
0.343***
0.030
(0.062)
(0.068)
(0.062)
(0.068)
0.062
(0.068)
0.062
(0.068)
1.414
1.031
1.406
1.031
1.419
1.030
1.409
1.031
Racea
Black
0.249**
0.168*

0.236**
0.171*
0.234**
0.175*
0.252**
0.163
+(0.075)
(0.084)
(0.075)
(0.084)
0.075
(0.084)
0.075
(0.083)
0.780
1.183
0.790
1.186
0.791
1.191
0.777
1.178


White
0.179
0.669***

0.188
0.669***
0.169
0.667***
0.187
0.671***
(0.152)
(0.168)
(0.152)
(0.168)
0.152
(0.168)
0.152
(0.168)
0.836
0.512
0.829
0.512
0.845
0.513
0.829
0.511


OtherRace0.343
+0.036
0.340
+0.038
0.350
+0.036
0.339
+0.037
(0.185)
(0.205)
(0.186)
(0.205)
0.185
(0.205)
0.186
(0.205)
1.410
0.964
1.405
0.963
1.420
0.965
1.403
0.964


FRPL0.446***
0.255*

0.444***
0.255*
0.449***
0.256*
0.443***
0.255*
(0.091)
(0.100)
(0.091)
(0.100)
0.091
(0.100)
0.091
(0.100)
0.640
0.775
0.642
0.775
0.638
0.774
0.642
0.775

LEP1.465***
0.903***

1.453***
0.903***
1.468***
0.901***
1.460***
0.904***
(0.099)
(0.106)
(0.100)
(0.106)
0.099
(0.106)
0.099
(0.106)
0.231
0.406
0.234
0.405
0.231
0.406
0.232
0.405

SPED0.849***
0.123

0.859***
0.130
0.850***
0.123
0.852***
0.125
(0.159)
(0.166)
(0.159)
(0.166)
0.158
(0.166)
0.159
(0.166)
0.428
0.884
0.424
0.878
0.427
0.885
0.426
0.883

TAG0.788***

0.786***
0.788***
0.788***
(0.081)

(0.081)
(0.081)
(0.081)
2.199

2.194
2.198
2.198


GPA0.145***

0.143***
0.145***
0.144***
(.007)

(.007)
(.007)
(.007)
1.156
1.154
1.156
1.155
Note.Thestandarderrors
ofestimated
coefficients
areinparentheseswiththeoddsratio,
eB,below.
aHispanic/Latinoisthereference
category.
+p
.10.
*p
.05.
**p.01.
***
p.001.
 78 Table13.Likelihood
ofActive
vs.PassiveSchoolChoice:DAPCategoriesandContexts(N=5,611)Externalcategories
Internal
categories
Allcategories
ContextsVariables
With
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYes
Support0.041***
0.034**

0.038***
0.031**
(0.010)
(0.011)
(0.010)
(0.011)
0.960
0.967
0.963
0.969

Empowerment
0.019*
0.026**

0.029**
0.030**

(0.008)
(0.009)
(0.009)
(0.010)

0.981
0.974
0.972
0.971

Boundaries&Expectations0.057***
0.043***
0.034**
0.034**

(0.011)
(0.012)
(0.011)
(0.012)

1.059
1.044
1.035
1.035


UseofTime0.023***
0.018**
0.015**
0.013*

(0.005)
(0.006)
(0.006)
(0.006)

1.024
1.018
1.015
1.013

Commitment
toLearning
0.052***
0.014
0.051***
0.012

(0.008)
(0.009)
(0.008)
(0.009)


1.054
1.014
1.052
1.012


PositiveValues

0.024*
0.009
0.023*
0.010

(0.010)
(0.011)
(0.011)
(0.012)


0.976
1.009
0.977
1.011


Socialcompetencies

0.046***
0.012
0.049***
0.015

(0.010)
(0.011)
(0.010)
(0.011)


1.047
1.012
1.050
1.015


Positiveidentity
0.036***
0.027**
0.024**
0.017
+

(0.008)
(0.008)
(0.008)
(0.009)


0.965
0.973
0.976
0.984


Personal
0.022
+0.022
+
(0.012)
(0.013)

0.978
0.978


Social
0.065***
0.037**

(0.013)
(0.014)

1.067
1.038

Family

0.035***
0.031***

(0.008)
(0.008)

0.965
0.970


School
0.039***
0.012

(0.008)
(0.009)

1.040
1.012

Community

0.017*
0.005

(0.008)
(0.009)

0.983
1.005
Notes.Thestandarderrors
ofestimated
coefficients
areinparentheses
withtheoddsratio
,eB,below.
Allmodels
includethesamecharacteristiccontrol
variables
asinTable12.Suppressed
here
intheinterest
ofspace,
theresults
ofthosevariablesaresubstantially
thesameregardless
oftheDAP
variablesinthemodel.
+p
.10.
*p
.05.
**p.01.
***
p.001.
79Control variables. Before considering the influence of the DAP score variables on school choice, I briefly summari
ze here the results for the control variables, including the academic variables. These results are broadly consis
tent across the asset models. Overall, before 
the academic variables are added, the control va
riables show a strong relationship with active 
choice, some positive and some negative. Girls ar
e significantly more likely than boys and Black 
students are significantly more lik
ely than Hispanic students to be active choosers, while White 
students are no different. Special education, LEP, and poor students are significantly less likely to actively choose. These results are sensitive to the inclusion of
 the two academic variables. Both are very 
significant, with TAG eligibility 
having the greatest impact and 8
th grade GPA somewhat less. 
Once introduced into the model, they change 
the impacts of the other student characteristics 
remarkably. Boys are now no different, nor are sp
ecial education students. Black students are now significantly more likely to actively choose and White 
students are now significantly less likely. LEP and poor students are still significantly less likely to be active choosers. Aggregate DAP asset scores. The results for the DAP total score in Table 12 indicate a 
1.7% increase in the odds of active choice for each one point increase in score. However, this relationship becomes insignificant when the academ
ic variables are added to the model.  This 
suggests some interaction between DAP scores
 and student GPA and TAG status. Similarly, 
aggregate measures of internal and external assets are both significantly related to students 
actively choosing, but the estimated coefficients
 get much smaller and insignificant once the 
academic variables are added. 
Overall, aggregate measures of developmental assets have a small positive effect on 
choice, and the relationship is sensitive to the inclusion of academic variables. These aggregate 
80measures of students™ developmental assets, howev
er, mask the potential influence of the more 
narrowly defined asset categories and contexts.  Asset category scores. 
Table 13 presents the results of the logistic regressions for school choice using the disaggregated developmental asset categories and contexts. Before the academic 

control variables are included all eight category results are significant. What is particularly 
noteworthy is that half of themŠequally divided between external and internal categoriesŠhave a positive relationship with ac
tive choice while the other half
 have a negative relationship. Assuming that the exercise of ac
tive school choice is universally desirable, one would expect positive student attributes to lead to active c
hoice. These results, however, reveal a more 
complex relationship.  
Rather than giving students the supports, confidence and ability to choose a different school, the four categories of negatively-related assets could give them the means to expect to be 
successful in their assigned school, to fibloom wher
e they are plantedfl rather than seeking more 
fertile ground. For example, it is not difficult to see that a strong network of supports and engagement with parents a
nd school (support) and feeling safe, valued, and useful 
(empowerment) in the current environment could 
incline a student agains
t seeking change. The same could be true of students who feel in contro
l of their lives and futures (positive identity).  
On the other hand, three of the positively-related categories encompass more structured 
and goal-oriented assets (boundaries and expectations, constructive use of time, and commitment 
to learning). A high asset level in these areas could lead a student to seek a school with a strong reputation for academic success.  
Adding the academic variables to the equation 
changes the odds ratio for each category. 
The most striking change shows internal categories
 much more sensitive than external categories 
to the academic factors. While all four external 
asset categories remain significant, three of the 
81four internal categories become insignificant. 
The changes in the odds ratio for these three categories are also notably larger, further indicat
ing their greater interaction with the academic 
variables.  The differing results between external and internal categories indicate that external assets 
operate somewhat independently of academic va
riables in the choice decision while internal 
assets may operate through academics, if at all.
 This is likely because, no matter the external 
pressures to achieve, learning and achievement ar
e essentially the provin
ce of the individual student and his or her attitudes, behaviors, and habits. This is certainly true of the commitment to 
learning category with its focus on school success. The same can be said, though to a lesser 
extent, of social competencies and positive values.
12 When academic variables are included, bounda
ries and expectations is the most 
influential of the categories, increasing the likelihood of active choice by 4.4% for each one point score increase. Support, positive identity, and empowerment decrease the odds, but to a 
slightly lesser extent.  The high correlations 
(Table 10, above) of boundaries and expectations with support and with empowerment and their 
opposing influences on active choice raise interesting questions about possible interactions 
in the choice process. Given that students with high scores in one category tend to have high scores in others, the results may depend on the combination of specific assets for each indivi
dual, something that the DAP does not measure.
13  Asset context scores. The alternative division of the 40 
developmental assets into five 
contextsŠ the personal, social, family, school, 
and community settings in which a student functionsŠoffers a different perspective on what might motivate active school choice. As 
                                                 12 An analysis of the relationship between developmental assets and GPA, further discussed in Section 5 of this 
chapter, shows similar relationships. 
13 Because the DAP measures categories of assets, not th
e 40 individual assets themselves, these results do not 
permit more precise consideration of which assets within a particular category most influence choice. (See Appendix 
A for a description of the 
assets in each category.)
82displayed in the two far-right side columns of Table 13,  and simila
r to the asset category results, all contexts are significant before the academ
ic variables are included and when academic 
variables are added some become insignificant.  
The social context is the only context that is significant and positive both with and 
without the academic variables. It is also the most
 influential of the contexts (increasing the odds 
of active choice by 3.8% for each one point score in
crease). A high score in this context indicates 
a broad, supportive social network in which the student plays an active role. While the support 
and empowerment categories also provide a supp
ortive network but have a negative impact on choice, the broader social context is more outwardly focused, including a more active role for the 
student. This difference likely contributes to the 
positive influence of the social context on active 
choice.  
Substantially unchanged with the addition of th
e academic variables, the results for both 
the family and personal contexts are significant 
and show a negative influence on active choice. Similar to the effects of the assets in the suppor
t, empowerment and positive identity categories, 
high scores in these two contexts may give 
a student both the necessary supports and the confidence in her or his ability to succeed in the assigned school. At the same time, neither 
context is specifically oriented toward school achievement, which 
helps to explain the lack of impact of the academic variables. The negative influence of the family context on active choice 

(decreasing the odds by 3.0% for each one point increase in score) is nearly as large as the positive influence of the social context, indicatin
g a noteworthy contrary influence on a student™s 
active school choice.  Though the school context shows a relatively large positive relationship with active choice initially, it becomes in
significant when the academic variables are included in the 
equation. This strong connection between the school context and the academic variables is not 
83unexpected. There is little in th
e school context that is not also explained by GPA and TAG status and that remainder is not 
influential in the choice decision.    84Section 4: The Relationship between Developmental Assets and School Persistence 
 To address hypothesis 2, that students who persist in their chosen school have higher DA 
than those who leave, I perform 
a statistical analysis of the Di
strict student-level data. The differences between those who persist (stayers) and those who do not (leavers) is whether the  student remained in the same 
school from the fall of the 9
th grade year to the fall of the 10
th grade year. The sample for this analysis is the same as for the choice analysis. 
 The relationship between DA and persistence is again tested using logistic regressions to estimate models with different combinations of 
developmental asset aggregates, categories, and 
contexts as independent variables. All models 
include the same student characteristics control 
variables as the choice models and are again analyzed with and without inclusion of the academic variables.  
In addition, the school attended could reasonably be expected to affect the likelihood of persistence in that school, as may a student™s
 status as a passive or active chooser. The persistence models are tested first without cont
rolling for school. Next, to control for any school 
effect on persistence, variables for the initial 9
th grade school are added for a second analysis. In both cases, the student sample remains the same as for the choice analysis. 
 As in the choice models, the developmental assets were introduced sequentially into the 
persistence model progressing from aggregate to disaggregated, focusing first on asset categories and then asset contexts. The eight specifications of the DAP scores are: 1. Total assets (aggregate) 
2. Aggregate external and internal asset categories 
3. Aggregate external assets (category) 
4. Aggregate internal assets (category) 
855. External asset categories (four) 
6. Internal asset 
categories (four) 7. External categories and internal categories (eight categories from 5 and 6, above) 
8. Asset contexts (five) 
The primary focus is on specifications 7 and 8, but the other models provide useful 
framing for them. Table 14 presents the results of
 the logistic regressions for the persistence 
models for the aggregate DAP measures, and 
 Table 15 presents the results for the DAP 
categories and contexts.   The persistence results 
show a significant effect of certa
in developmental assets. It is 
reasonable to expect that the likelihood of a student staying in a particular school would be affected by factors relating to that school. To control for possible school effects, the models for 
the persistence results reported in
 Tables 14 and 15 include a set of variables for the students™ 9th grade schools. The results for models with and 
without the school variables are virtually the same. Thus, the DAP variables appear to have an 
effect that is largely independent of the school effects. Further addition of a variable for school choice to the model, to control for possible differences between active and passive choosers, also leaves the results virtually unchanged and is not included in the reported results.  
86    Table14.LikelihoodofOneyearSchoolPersistence:DAPAggregates
(N=5,611)TotalDAP
ExternalandInternal
ExternalInternal
Variables
With
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYes
DAPtotal0.015***
0.009*
(0.004)
(0.004)
1.015
1.009

External
0.007
0.014
0.025**
0.017*

(0.012)
(0.012)
(0.007)
(0.007)

1.007
1.014
1.025
1.017

Internal

0.024
+0.004
0.030***
0.016
+
(0.013)
(0.013)
(0.008)
(0.008)

1.024
1.004
1.030
1.016


Gender0.020
0.150
+
0.021
0.150
+0.018
0.150
+0.022
0.151
+(0.078)
(0.080)
(0.078)
(0.080)
(0.078)
(0.080)
(0.078)
(0.080)
0.980
0.861
0.979
0.861
0.982
0.861
0.978
0.860
Racea
Black
0.665***
0.538***

0.664***
0.538***
0.658***
0.536***

0.661***
0.533***
(0.104)
(0.107)
(0.104)
(0.107)
(0.104)
(0.106)
(0.104)
(0.106)
0.514
0.584
0.515
0.584
0.518
0.585
0.516
0.587

White
0.404
0.590*

0.407
+0.589*
0.396
+0.588*
0.409
+0.592*
(0.225)
(0.229)
(0.225)
(0.229)
(0.225)
(0.229)
(0.225)
(0.229)
0.668
0.554
0.666
0.555
0.673
0.556
0.665
0.553

OtherRace0.429
+0.560*

0.429
+0.561*
0.428
+0.562*
0.429
+0.559*
(0.236)
(0.240)
(0.236)
(0.240)
(0.236)
(0.240)
(0.236)
(0.240)
0.651
0.571
0.651
0.571
0.652
0.570
0.651
0.572


FRPL0.124
0.082

0.123
0.082
0.125
0.083
0.123
0.082
(0.131)
(0.131)
(0.131)
(0.131)
(0.131)
(0.131)
(0.131)
(0.131)
0.883
0.921
0.884
0.921
0.883
0.921
0.884
0.921


LEP0.298**
0.114

0.295**
0.115
0.301**
0.115
0.293**
0.112
(0.100)
(0.103)
(0.100)
(0.103)
(0.100)
(0.103)
(0.100)
(0.103)
0.742
0.892
0.744
0.891
0.740
0.891
0.746
0.894


SPED0.038
0.161

0.041
0.163
0.036
0.165
0.043
0.158
(0.138)
(0.140)
(0.138)
(0.141)
(0.138)
(0.141)
(0.138)
(0.140)
0.962
1.175
0.960
1.177
0.965
1.180
0.958
1.171


TAG0.379**
0.381**
0.381**
0.377**
(0.138)
(0.138)
(0.138)
(0.138)
1.461
1.463
1.464
1.457

GPA0.062***
0.062***
0.063***

0.062***
(0.007)
(0.007)
(0.007)
(0.007)
1.064
1.064
1.065
1.064
Notes.Thestandarderrors
ofestimated
coefficients
areinparentheses
withtheoddsratio
,eB,below.Models
includeschoolvariables.
aHispanic/Latinoisthereference
category.
+p
.10.
*p
.05.
**p.01.
***
p.001.
87Table15.Likelihood
ofOne
yearSchoolPersistence:DAPCategoriesandContexts(N=5,611)
Externalcategories
Internal
categories
Allcategories
ContextsVariables
With
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYes
Support0.002
0.003
0.001
0.002
(0.012)
(0.012)
(0.012)
(0.012)
1.002
1.003
1.001
1.002

Empowerment
0.007
0.004
0.001
0.003
(0.010)
(0.010)
(0.011)
(0.011)

1.007
1.004
1.001
1.003

Boundaries&Expectations0.021
0.015
0.016
0.017
(0.013)
(0.013)
(0.013)
(0.013)

1.021
1.015
1.017
1.017

UseofTime0.003
0.005

0.002
0.001
(0.007)
(0.007)
(0.007)
(0.007)

0.997
0.995
0.998
0.999

Commitment
toLearning
0.015
0.001
0.012
0.004

(0.010)
(0.010)
(0.010)
(0.010)


1.015
0.999
1.012
0.996

PositiveValues

0.035**
0.024
+0.040**
0.030*


(0.013)
(0.013)
(0.014)
(0.014)


0.966
0.976
0.961
0.970

Socialcompetencies

0.034**
0.025*
0.031*
0.022
+
(0.012)
(0.012)
(0.012)
(0.012)


1.035
1.025
1.031
1.022

Positiveidentity
0.015
0.017
+0.012
0.012

(0.010)
(0.010)
(0.010)
(0.010)


1.016
1.017
1.012
1.012

Personal
0.002
0.004

(0.014)
(0.014)

1.002
0.996

Social
0.018
0.010

(0.015)
(0.015)

1.018
1.010

Family

0.021*
0.022*

(0.009)
(0.009)

1.021
1.022

School
0.015
0.006

(0.010)
(0.011)

1.016
1.006

Community

0.026*
0.015

(0.010)
(0.011)

0.975
0.985
Notes.Thestandarderrors
ofestimated
coefficients
areinparentheses
withtheoddsratio
,eB,below.Models
includeschoolvariables.
Allmodels
includethesamecharacteristiccontrol
variables
asinTable14.Suppressedhere
intheinterest
ofspace,
theresults
ofthosevariablesaresubstantially
thesameregardless
oftheDAP
variablesinthemodel.
+p
.10.
*p
.05.
**p.01.
***
p.001.
88Control variables. As with the choice analysis, the results for the control variables are 
broadly consistent across the asset models. Ov
erall, before the academic variables are added, 
several control variables show a strong negative relationship with persistence, though few are significant. The racial/ethnic variables all have a dramatically stronger relationship with 
persistence than do the other demographic control variables.  
Though the control variable results for school persistence are sensitive to the inclusion of the two academic variables, they are less sensitive 
than in the case of school choice. When the 
academic variables are added, the results for Bl
ack students remain signi
ficant while those for LEP students become insignificant. Interestingly, 
the results for girls versus boys and for White 
students become significant with 
the addition of the academic variab
les. Girls are less likely to 
persist than boys, which is the opposite of the ch
oice results. With the addition of the academic 
variables the odds of persistence for special e
ducation students become positive while the results 
for all of the other groups remain negative.  
Aggregate DAP asset scores. The results for total assets in Table 14 again indicate the 
positive collective impact of DA, estimating a 1.5% 
increase in the odds of persistence for each 
one point increase in total DAP score. Adding the 
academic variables reduces that to 0.9% but it 
remains significant. Estimated in
creased odds of persistence for the external aggregate and the internal aggregate modeled separately are 
2.5% and 3.0%, respectively. Again, adding the 
academic variables reduces those oddsŠto 1.7% and 1.6%, respectivelyŠbut they also remain 

significant.   As with the choice results, the use of aggregate DAP scores to estimate persistence masks 
the potential effects of the more refined asset cat
egories and contexts. Overall, DAP assets have a small positive effect on persis
tence, but this total score doesn™t tell us what matters among 
those assets.  
89Asset category scores. 
Table 15 presents the results of the logistic regressions for persistence using the developmental asset categori
es and contexts. Category results are similar 
whether modeled with other categories in the ex
ternal and internal aggr
egates or modeled all 
together. In contrast to the choice results where all categories 
were significant, none of the external asset categories has a significant impact on 
school persistence, whether or not the 
academic control variables are included. Only two 
internal categories are significantly related to 
persistence. The addition of academic variables 
has a negligible effect on the external assets, while it changes the size but not the significance of the coefficien
ts for the internal assets. The 
differing results between external and internal categories indicate th
at certain internal assets are 
the primary drivers of school pers
istence, with little, if any, contribution from external assets. 
This is the opposite of the choice decision where external assets are prominent. 
The two internal asset categories consistently
 associated with persistence are social 
competencies and positive values. A student with
 a high score in social competencies would 
likely make and maintain social connections with
 both peers and adults at a new school, which could explain the increased like
lihood of persistence. A one-point increase in the social 
competencies score increases the odds of pers
istence by 3.5%. When the academic variables are 
added, the odds are lowered to 2.5%.  The relationship between positive values and persistence is negative. In contrast to social 
competencies, positive values are more persona
lly and individually focused which could set a student apart from peers and challenge adults a
nd might explain the nega
tive relationship with 
persistence.  For each one-point increase in the 
score for positive values, the odds of persistence 
decrease by 3.4%. When academic variables are adde
d, the odds are slightly better at a negative 
2.4%. 90Asset context scores. Only two context resultsŠfamily and communityŠare significant 
without the academic variables in the model, 
and the community context becomes insignificant 
when the academic variables are added. The fam
ily context is positive and significant, with virtually no change with academic variables. A 
one point increase in the family context score 
increases the odds of school persistence by 2.1% 
and rises to 2.2% with inclusion of academic 
variables. It is noteworthy that family context is made up en
tirely of assets from the external 
asset categories, none of which is significant for 
persistence. In some way, the combination of 
particular external assets in the family context 
creates a different relations
hip. Also interesting is the contrast between the significant negative infl
uence of the family context on choice and the 
significant positive influence on persistence. It appears that the family is a positive force for 

school stability, at least for these two measures. 
Leavers and stayers.   The logistic regression analysis for persistence considers differences in DAP scores 
between those who persist in their 9
th grade school (stayers) and those who do not (leavers). Knowing who they are and where they went can add to our understanding of the motivations to 
stay in or leave a school. I use descriptive statistic
s in an attempt to shed 
light on these questions.  Leavers left their initial school at various times between the fall of their 9
th grade year and the fall of their 10th grade year.14  During this period a total of 842 students, 15.0% of the analysis sample, left their in
itial school. Active choosers are less likely to leave their school, 10.3% are leavers, than are passive choosers, where 16.8% are leavers. Table 16 shows the distribution of demographic and ot
her student characteristics for all students in the persistence 
analysis and for stayers and leavers. 
                                                 14 Though some students left and then later returned to the same school and others changed schools more than once, 
students are counted as leavers if they are not in their initial 9
th grade school at the beginning of 10
th grade. 91Among the racial/ethnic groups, the differences
 between Black students and Hispanic and White students stand out. Black students are more 
likely to be leavers, with 22.0% of them being 
leavers.  Hispanic (12.7% are leavers) and Wh
ite students (12.8% are leavers) have nearly identical rates of leaving, both much lower than fo
r Black students. Overall, leavers have slightly 
lower mean DAP aggregate scores. Mean GPAs are lower for leavers and the differences 

between leavers and stayers are larger. The noticeably lower (4.76 points) mean 9
th grade GPA for leavers indicates that  poor academic perf
ormance may be a motivation for changing schools 
between 9th and 10th grades. For such a large district with an urban population, there were relatively few school changes between the fall of 9th grade and the fall of 10th grade. Of the 5,611 students in the analysis sample, only 842 (15.0%) were leavers.
15 Passive choosers were more likely to be leavers (16.8%) than were active choosers (10.3%). District data show that only 41.7% of the leavers were enrolled in another District school in the fall of 10th grade.  The other 58.3% were in no schoolŠhad either left the district or their status was uncertain. Far more passive choosers (64.6%) than active choosers (26.7%) were in no school.                                                     15 A number of students left their 9
th grade school but returned to the same school by the beginning of 10
th grade. 
Those students are not considered leavers.
92 Table16.Characteristics
ofStayersand
Leavers
(N=5,611)VariablesAllStayersLeaversn%n%n%Number5,611100.04,76985.084215.0Gender
Female2,85050.82,43485.441614.6Male2,76149.22,33584.642615.4Race/Ethnicity
Black/African
American1,30723.31,01978.028822.0Hispanic/Latino
3,90969.7341287.349712.7White2414.321087.23112.8OtherRace1542.712883.12616.9TAG1,03718.596192.7767.3SPED4057.232780.77819.3LEP1,29623.11,07883.221816.8FRPL4,86586.74,11484.675115.4Activechooser1,57228.01,41089.716210.3Passive
chooser4,03972.03,35983.268016.8
nMeannMeannMeanDAPTotalscore
5,61141.884,76942.0684240.86DAPExternalscore5,61120.924,76921.0084220.47DAPInternalscore
5,61120.964,76921.0784220.39GPA
8th5,61183.034,76983.5584280.09GPA
9th5,52181.114,76081.7776177.01Note.Thistableincludesonlythosestudents
withcomplete
DAPscores,less
eleven
students
withmissing8thgrade
GPA
ornoschoolforactive/passivechoicedecision.  Among active choosers, those leaving a choice sc
hool were equally likely to transfer to another choice school or to a comprehensive hi
gh school, with 37.9% transferring to each.  Active choosers leaving a comprehensive high sc
hool (which was not their assigned high school) were far more likely to transfer to another co
mprehensive high school (57.0%) than to a choice 
93school (8.9%). At the same time, very few passive
 choosers left a comprehensive high school for 
a choice school.  In sum, when they leave their 9
th grade school, active choosers are about one-half as likely as passive choosers to leave the District. Among active choosers, those in choice schools 
are equally likely to transfer to a comprehensive high school as to another choice school. Not surprisingly, it is rare for active choosers leaving a comprehensiv
e high school (that is not their assigned school) to transfer to a choice school. More than half transfer to another comprehensive school and most of the rest are not enrolled in a school at the beginning of 10th grade.  
   94Section 5: The Relationship between Deve
lopmental Assets and Grade Point Average 
As the choice and persistence analyses show, adding academic variablesŠGPA and 
TAGŠto the logistic regression models generally
 reduces the coefficients and sometimes the 
significance of the DAP scores. In many cases, especially for the DA aggregates and some 
individual categories in the choice analysis, results become in
significant with the addition of 
academic variables. This indicates that any 
effects might be due to academic achievementŠ
measured by GPAŠrather than to DA.
16   Prior research shows a consistently positive relationship between DA and GPA (Scales et 
al., 2000; Scales et al., 2006). At the same time, 
the choice and persistence results indicate that there are effects of DA independent of GPA. To further investigate these effects, I use a linear regression model to show how well DA predict 9
th grade GPA.  The other independent variables 
in the model include the prior year (8
th grade) GPA, the 9th grade school attended, student choiceŠwhether a student is an active or passive chooserŠand student demographic and other characteristics.   As with the choice and persistence models, developmental assets were introduced 
sequentially into the GPA model 
progressing from aggregate to disaggregated, focusing first on asset categories and then asset contexts. The 
eight specifications of the DAP scores are: 
1. Total assets (aggregate) 
2. Aggregate external and internal asset categories 
3. Aggregate external assets (category) 
4. Aggregate internal assets (category) 
5. External asset categories (four) 
                                                 16 The academic variables include both GP
A and TAG. Removing TAG from the m
odels has only a small effect on 
the results, indicating that GPA is the primary act
or. Thus, the focus of this analysis is GPA. 
956. Internal asset 
categories (four) 7. External categories and internal categories (eight categories from 5 and 6, above) 
8. Asset contexts (five) 
Table 17 presents the results of the GPA regr
ession analysis for aggregated DAP scores and Table 18 presents the results for DAP categories and contexts.  Table17.Determinants
of9thGrade
GPA:
DAPAggregate
Scores
(N=5,521)DAPTotalExternalInternal
External&Internal
Variables
BBBB
DAPtotal0.035***
(0.007)
.048

External
0.049***
(0.012)
.036
0.024
(0.020)
.018

Internal

0.080***
(0.013)
.055
0.100***
(0.022)
.070

Choice0.463
+(0.249)
.030
0.468
+(0.249)
.030
0.457
+(0.249)
.029
0.455
+(0.249)
.029

8thgrade
GPA0.716***
(0.012)
.669
0.720***
(0.012)
.673
0.712***
(0.012)
.666
0.712***
(0.012)
.665

Gender0.666***
(0.130)
.048
0.664***
(0.130)
.047
0.667***
(0.130)
.048
0.667***
(0.130)
.048
Racea
Black

0.200
(0.181)
.012
0.169
(0.181)
.010
0.205
(0.180)
.012
0.194
(0.181)
.012

White
0.964**
(0.355)
.028
0.973**
(0.355)
.028
0.955**
(0.354)
.027
0.952**
(0.354)
.027

Other0.879*
(0.399)
.021
0.875*
(0.400)
.021
0.881**
(0.399)
.021
0.882*
(0.399)
.021

FRPL
0.400
+(0.203)
.019
0.400
+(0.204)
.019
0.399
+(0.203)
.019
0.398
+(0.203)
.019

LEP
0.834***
(0.169)
.050
0.832***
(0.169)
.050
0.829***
(0.169)
.050
0.824***
(0.169)
.049

SPED0.118
(0.252)
.004
0.135
(0.252)
.005
0.098
(0.252)
.004
0.089
(0.252)
.003

(Constant)
20.196***
(1.031)
20.300***
(1.034)
20.288***
(1.026)
20.426***
(1.033)

Rsquare.559
.558
.560
.560
Note.Allmodels
includeacontrol
variable
forthe9th
grade
school.
Intheinterest
ofspace,
school
results
arenotreported.
aHispanic/Latinoisthereference
category.
+p
.10.
*p
.05.
**p.01.
***
p.001.
96 Table18.Determinants
of9thGrade
GPA:
DAPCategoriesandContexts(N=5,521)
Externalcategories
Internal
categories
Allcategories
Allcontexts
Variables
BBBB
Support0.009
(0.020)
.007
0.004
(0.020)
.004


Empowerment
0.031
+(0.017)
.025
0.017
(0.019)
.014


Boundaries&Expectations0.003
(0.021)
.002
0.032
(0.022)
.026


Useoftime
0.024*
(0.011)
.025
0.013
(0.012)
.014


Commitment
tolearning
0.072***
(0.017)
.062
0.075***
(0.017)
.065


Positivevalues
0.039
+(0.021)
.029
0.042
+(0.023)
.032


Socialcompetencies

0.096***
(0.020)
.074
0.100***
(0.020)
.077


Positiveidentity
0.053**
(0.016)
.043
0.053**
(0.017)
.043


Personalcontext

0.018
(0.024)
.012

Socialcontext

0.092***
(0.025)
.069

Family
context

0.014
(0.016)
.011

Schoolcontext

0.032
+(0.017)
.027


Community
context

0.050**
(0.017)
.042

8thgrade
GPA0.720***
(0.012)
.673
0.702***
(0.012)
.657
0.702***
(0.012)
.657
0.710***
(0.012)
.664

Choice0.462
+(0.249)
.030
0.436
+(0.248)
.028
0.432
+(0.248)
.028
0.471
+(0.249)
.030

(Constant)
20.321***
(1.035)
21.299***
(1.045)
21.403***
(1.049)
20.561***
(1.041)
Rsquare.558
.563
.563
.560
Notes.Allmodels
includeacontrol
variable
forthe9th
grade
school.
Intheinterest
ofspace,
school
results
arenotreported.
Allmodels
includethesamecharacteristic
control
variables
asinTable17.Suppressed
here
intheinterest
ofspace,
theresults
ofthose
variablesaresubstantially
thesameregardless
oftheDAP
variablesinthemodel.
+p
.10.
*p
.05.
**p.01.
***
p.001.
  97Eighth grade GPA is by far the largest predictor of 9
th grade GPA. But the results for the GPA regression are also consistent with prio
r research which shows that DA significantly 
influence student GPA. Overall, higher DA levels are related to higher GPA. This study suggests that some DA have a negative but still significant 
relationship with GPA. Results for DA indicate 
an influence on 9th grade GPA that is independent of prior GPA. These results are essentially unaffected by the inclusion of the choice variable in
 the equation. The DAP total score has a positive 
and significant relationship with 9th grade GPA, when 
holding constant all other independent variables, including 8th grade GPA. Much like the 
persistence results, the results for the external 
and internal aggregates and the asset categories 
show clearly that internal a
ssets are the key to the relati
onship between DA and GPA. When modeled with the external aggregate, the internal aggregate is significant and positive (predicted 

to increase GPA by 0.100 points for each one point in
crease in internal asset score), while the 
external is not significant and is negative (predicted to decrease GPA by .024 points). The DAP category scores show the same relationship. When 
all eight external and internal categories are 
included in the model, none of the extern
al categories shows si
gnificant results.  On the other hand, all four internal categories are significant. Both commitment to 
learning and social competencies have positive 
effects, predicted to increase GPA by 0.076 and 
0.100 points, respectively, for a one point score increase. The relationship between commitment 
to learning and GPA seems obviousŠa strong comm
itment to learning would almost inevitably 
lead to a higher GPA. The relationship between social competencies 
and GPA suggests that a 
student who is better able to connect with others, both peers and adults, may have more resources 
for meeting school requirements. The negative
 relationship of positive values and positive 
identity with GPA suggests that a student who 
stands up for personal values and has a strong sense of self-worth may be less mo
tivated to pursue a high GPA.  
98Results for only three contextsŠsocial, sc
hool, and communityŠare significant. Each 
one point increase in the social context score predicts a 0.042 point increase in GPA, while the same increase in the community context score 
predicts a 0.040 point decrease. While it seems 
reasonable for a student™s commitment to lear
ning to have an impact on GPA, the common 
conception of a student™s social context might 
seem to have the opposite effect. But in this 
analysis, the assets that make up social compet
encies and the social context appear to matter 
most for GPA, with commitme
nt to learning close behind.  Even when controlling for the 9
th grade school, the school context has a significant positive relationship with GPA. Though the effect is 
not as large as for the social context or the 
social competencies category, a one-point increase
 in the school context score still predicts a 
0.032 point increase in GPA. With the effects of th
e student™s school held constant in the model, 
this indicates a school-related positive influence of DA that is independent of which school a student attends. The school context includes some internal assets
Šthose the student brings to the school such as motivation and engagement that ar
e part of the commitment to learning category. 
It also includes some external assetsŠthose the 
student perceives as provided by the school such as safety, caring and encouragement, and clear 
and fair rules. Because both the internal and 
external asset measures derive from the experi
ence and perception of the student, school context scores will certainly differ among students in the same school. 
For example, one student might 
find it easy to comply with school rules and deve
lop positive relationships with teachers while 
another, with different attitudes and behaviors (assets), might
 have the opposite experience. Clearly what a student brings to a school is impor
tant, but these results indicate that a student™s relationship with the school also contributes to academic performance as measured by GPA.  
Though one might expect that family influences
 would be important in raising GPA, the results for this context are relatively small as 
well as insignificant. The reason for this, as 
99suggested in the persistence analysis, may be that this prim
arily external force (the elements of 
the family context are all related to external 
assets) cannot overcome students™ own internal 
motivations, attitudes and behaviors. The low coefficients and lack of significance in the family 
context results contrasts with the results for both choice and persistence, suggesting that those results are about something other than GPA.   
Causal Inference. Results from observational studies 
such as this one are generally considered to be correlational, not causal. The lack of randomization in the sample raises the 
question whether the results are biased. Bias due to unmeasured diffe
rences in the subjects rather 
than to differences in the treatment affects internal validity while bias due to limited sampling 

methods affects external 
validity (generalizability). But there are techniques to reduce the bias and to quantify it. The result of applying such techniques to the GPA model in this study 
supports the inference of a strong causal relationship between DA and 9th grade GPA. Possible bias can be substantially reduced by controlling for prior conditions (possible covariates) in a regression model. A number of 
research studies have shown that these controls, including likely relevant charac
teristics of the subjects and pre-treatment measures of the 
outcome variable (a pretest), can reduce 60% to
 90% of the bias in non-experimental studies 
relative to randomized experime
nts. One study, for example, found bias reductions between 64 
and 96 percent (Bifulco, 2012) and another found reductions of 84 and 94 percent (Shadish, 
Clark, & Steiner, 2008).  In the current study, the regression models include independent variables for student characteristics and 8th grade GPA (essentially a pretest), as we
ll as DA variables, as predictors of 
9th grade GPA. All of these variables were meas
ured late in the spring of the students™ 8th grade year and establish common baseline data for all students at the beginning of the study period in the fall of 9
th grade. A variable for the school attended in 9th grade controls for school effects on 100GPA during that year. Controlling for the prior y
ear GPA also controls fo
r other possible factors that might contribute to GPA ge
nerally (for example, mother™s 
education is often included as a variable when those data are available). Based on 
the research cited above, 
these controls of prior conditions can be expected to account for a larg
e part of the preexisti
ng differences between 
subjects and, as a result, to substantially reduce any bias in the results.  While controlling for prior conditions reduces bias, it says nothing about the level of bias or its import for inference. Ken Frank and collea
gues (2013) describe a technique to quantify and interpret any remaining bias by measuring the 
robustness of causal in
ference to fievaluate 
whether bias is large enough to invalidate the inference of a studyfl (p. 439). Rather than speculating on the possible influence of unidentified confounding variables or the generalizability of results, this technique is ba
sed on the questions: fiHow much bias must there 
have been due to uncontrolled preexisting differences to make the infere
nce invalid?fl and fiHow 
much bias must there have been in the sampli
ng process to make the inference invalid for a 
population that includes my population of interest?fl (p. 438). These questions are answered by 
considering the replacement of act
ual cases with hypothetical counterfactual cases with an effect of zero until the overall results reach a specified threshold, usually fistatistical significanceŠan estimate just large enough to be
 unlikely to occur by chance alonefl (p. 439). The robustness of the inference is expressed as the percentage of those zero-effect cases necessary to make the 
results non-significant. Larger differences between the estimate and the threshold indicate more 
robust inferences. Frank (2014) has developed a spreadsheet that
 automates the calculations necessary to 
calculate the robustness of the causal inference. Using that spreadsheet for the relationship between the total DA score and 9
th grade GPA shows that to invalidate the inference, 61% 
(3,368) of the cases would have to be replaced with cases in which 
there is an effect of zero. In 101other words, a rather large amount 
(61%) of the estimate would have to be due to bias before the 
results would lose statistical significance.  
This robust causal inference between total DA and 9th Grade GPA supports prior research findings of a positive relationship between developmental factors, including DA, and academic 

achievement (see Chapter 2) and helps support the ar
gument that the relationship is causal rather 
than merely correlational. In other words, incr
easing overall DA levels may well, independent of 
other factors, be expected to result in increased academic 
achievement as measured by 9
th grade GPA. 

   102Section 6: Summary of Quantitative Results 
Overall, the results suggest that there is a significant influence of developmental assets on 
choice, persistence, and GPA. Though results for individual asset categories and contexts are mixedŠwith some positive and some negative, some
 significant and some notŠtotal assets are 
positively and significantly related to choice (without
 academic variables), persistence, and GPA. 
It is apparent that DA and GPA are closely related. Much of the influence of DA on choice and 
persistence appears to operate th
rough their influence on GPA. At the same time, total assets and 
internal assets have a significant influence on 9
th grade GPA that is not explained by 8th grade GPA, indicating that some part
 of DA operates independently. Perhaps the most unexpected result is that some DA have a statistically significant 
negative relationship with one or more of choi
ce, persistence, and GPA. The assets in the 
positive values and positive identity internal cate
gories may incline a student to make his or her 
own decisions based on values that may be inconsistent with the 
expectations of others, whether peers or adults. This could be desirable when resisting negative pressures but problematic if it clashes with the expectations of authority figures. The results will depend on the particular 

person and context. The support and empowerment 
external categories are negatively related to choice, which may indicate that 
students who are well-supported by others and feel in control of their lives are better able to succeed where they are rather than looking for alternatives. Again, the results will depend on the person and the context. 
The results for choice and persistence differ substantially in most ways. First, when the academic variables are not included, all DA scor
es are significant. When they are included, 
choice is almost entirely influenced by external a
ssets while persistence is
 entirely influenced by internal assets. The results show that GPA is also
 essentially influenced by internal assets. It seems that external forces may have more infl
uence on short term outcomes, such as making a 
103school choice decision, but the internal attributes of the individual are what motivate sustained 
behaviors over time. 
Of the contexts, only the family context is
 significantly related to both choice and persistence, but with opposite signsŠnegative for choice and positive for persistence. (It is not 

significantly related to GPA.)  One surprising resu
lt is that the school context is not significantly related to choice (except without 
the academic variables), or persis
tence. Because both analyses 
are school-related, it would be reasonable to assume that the sc
hool context would be important. 
Both family and school are generally presumed to
 matter greatly in studen
t™s lives. These results show that family does matter for choice and persis
tence, though in different ways, but that school does not. The fact that family is not si
gnificantly related to GPA is unexpected.  
The relationship between DA and academic achievement was assessed here only to 
disentangle their effects with regard to the choice and persistence questions. However, the strong, independent, positive relationship between DA and 9
th grade GPA is important on its 
own. Regardless of a student™s status as an active or passive chooser or persistence in 9th grade, the strong positive relationship betw
een overall DA and GPA holds true.  The qualitative portion of this study provides an opportunity to investigate these results more deeply. There may be some clues in students
™ perceptions as to some of the differences in 
the category results and, possibly more important, 
the roles of the family
 and the school in the choice decision and persistence in a chosen school.   104Chapter Five: Qualitative Results 
 Section 1: Introduction and Overview The qualitative analysis supplements and e
xpands on the quantitative by independently identifying and describing themes from the in
terview data. The resulting themes are then 
compared to current theory to look for confirma
tion, contradiction, and to add to key points in the quantitative results. Following the method described in Chapter 3, initial analysis of the 
interview data identifies themes and their component elem
ents through an inductive analysis using grounded theory principles. The key points are then related to positive youth development 
theory as operationalized by the prior theory and the 40 developmental assets framework, 
focusing on the statistically significant quantita
tive results. This comparison expands on the 
quantitative findings and can inform future
 research and intervention efforts.  
As the review of the literature describes, positive youth development theory is expressed 
and operationalized in a variety of frameworks.  To compare the qua
litative to the quantitative 
data, I focus on the expression of positive yout
h development theory through the Search 
Institute™s developmental assets framework. As fit
he most extensive list 
of personal and social assets (Scales & Leffert, 1999)fl (Eccles & Gootman, 2002, p. 71), it includes the range of 
elements of PYD theory.   
In Section 2 of this chapter, I describe the interviewed students and the schools they attended for 9th and 10th grades.  Section 3 describes the themes that arise from the interview data 
through the students™ relationships with their families and schools. The relationship of the interview themes to key points in the developmen
tal assets framework relating to school choice 
and persistence is discussed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 is a brief summary of the qualitative 
results. 
105Section 2: The Students and their Schools
  All of the interviewed students are ac
tive choosers. Because the purpose of the 
interviews is to identify factors in school persis
tence, the students are designated as stayers or 
leavers, consistent with the persistence analys
is. The five students in the interview sample 
represent a variety of demographic and other characteristics, generally consistent with the 
District as a whole, as shown in Table 19. Four are Hispanic/Latino, and one is Black/African American. The parents of the four Hispanic stude
nts are all immigrants from Mexico. Four of the five students qualify for free lunch.    Table19.InterviewedStudents:
Characteristics
StudentCharacteristicsMarcosGiannaSamanthaDavidMarisaPersistence
9thto10thgrade
LeaverLeaverStayerStayerStayerAge1616151616Gender
MaleFemaleFemaleMaleFemaleRaceHispanic/LatinoBlack/African
AmericanHispanic/LatinoHispanic/LatinoHispanic/LatinoSchool8thNeighborhoodANeighborhoodBNeighborhoodCNeighborhoodCNeighborhoodDSchool9thMgt.&Bus.HSTechHSEarlyCollegeHSEarlyCollegeHSEarlyCollegeHSSchool10thHorizons
HSHorizons
HSEarlyCollegeHSEarlyCollegeHSEarlyCollegeHSLanguage
aSpanish/English
English
Spanish/English
Spanish/English
Spanish/English
LEPNoNoExited2012Exited2008Exited2007SPEDAutismRR120%NoNoNoNoTAGNoNoNoYesYesFRPLbDirectCertNoFreeDirectCert/FreeFreeGPA
8th8685899396GPA
9th73.4486.9488.1990.5593.86Attendance8thc165/175173/175175/175175/175173/175Attendance9thc166/182177/182182/182181/182181/182
aPrimarylanguagespoken:
athome/by
thestudent.
bDirect
cert
=automaticallyqualifies
forfreelunchbasedonotherprogrameligibility.
cDaysattended/totaldays.106Though the District offers some middle school 
choices, all five students attended regular middle schools in 8
th grade. Two attended the same school. 
One student is eligible for special education services at a relatively low level. He 
does not report receiving special services in 9
th or 10th grade.  
High schools: Stayers and leavers. As shown in Table 19, the five interviewed students attended a total of four schools in 9th and 10th grades. The differences among those schools help 
to understand the students™ choice and persistence decisions. Other than the regular high school program at HHS, each of the schools attended by 
these students has entrance requirements that 
vary depending on the school and program. 
Early College High School.
  Marisa, David, and Samantha 
attended Early College High School (ECHS) for both 9th and 10th grades. ECHS is a small school
, with just over 200 students enrolled in grades 9 through 12 in the 2012-13 year (when these students were in 9th grade) and 
about 70 students in the 10th grade in 2013-14 (when the interviews were conducted). The school is partnered with a community college and students have the opportunity to earn both a high school diploma and an associate™s degree in f
our years. Students came to ECHS from a 21 
middle schools across the District for the 9
th grade class in the fall of 2013.17 Technology High School. Gianna attended Technology High School (Tech) in 9th grade. 
Tech is a new small high school centered on 
project-based learning supported by technology. Gianna™s 9th grade class (nearly 150 students) was only the second class to enter the school. Students came from 34 Di
strict middle schools. 
Management and Business High School.
  Marcos attended Management and Business 
High School (MBHS) in 9th grade. MBHS is also a small school (just over 100 students per 
                                                 17 Students also come to all of the schools from private schools within the District and from schools outside the 
District. 107grade) but has been a part of the District choice program for many years. Though both Tech and 
MBHS have technology-focused programs, MBHS 
has a broader focus, including programs in 
marketing, business management, entrepreneursh
ip, fashion trend, sports and entertainment 
radio, and digital and interactive multimedia. Di
strict students came to MBHS from 30 schools 
for the fall 2013 9th grade class. 
Horizons High School.  Gianna and Marcos both transferred to Horizons High School (HHS), their assigned school, for 10th grade. Gianna enrolled in the career magnet program and 
Marcos in the regular high school program. HHS is
 the largest District school, with more than 
4,000 students, divided more or less evenly between its regular program and its career magnet 
program. The career magnet program has approximate
ly 20 separate specialty clusters, including advanced math, science, and social studies programs, culinary arts, world languages, building 
trades, photography, and aeronautics. For the fall 2013 9th grade class, students came to the 
career magnet from 36 District 
middle schools. The HHS regular pr
ogram attracts students from 
around the District as well, with students from 
37 District schools. The two middle schools in the 
HHS feeder pattern contributed mo
re than 60% of the incoming 9
th graders. Gianna and Marcos each attended one of the feeder pattern middle schools.  Thus when
 they transferred to HHS in 
10th grade, they knew a number of st
udents who were already there.  DAP scores. The students™ DAP scores range from very low to very high, as presented in Table 20. Consistent with the prediction of the persistence hypothesis (Hypothesis 2), stayers™ scores are higher than leavers™ scores.
18 The Search Institute has di
vided the scores into four ranges to aid interpretation: ExcellentŠscores from 26 to 30; GoodŠscores from 21 to 25; Fair, 
scores from 15 to 20; and LowŠscores from 0 to
 14 (Search Institute, 2005). When divided into 
                                                 18 There are students in the larger sample with the opposite
 relationship between scores and persistence, but I was 
unable to interview them. 
108these ranges, scores of the stayers are almost 
all in the excellent and good ranges while leavers™ scores are primarily in the fair and poor ranges.   
Table20.InterviewedStudents:
DAPAsset
Scores

StudentDAPscoresLeaversStayersDAPAssetsMarcosGiannaSamanthaDavidMarisa
Totalaggregate39(3)22(4)46(2)44(2)53(1)CategoriesExternalaggregate
18(3)12(4)24(2)22(2)26(1)Support16(3)13(4)29(1)26(1)23(2)Empowerment18(3)5(4)25(2)25(2)25(2)Boundaries19(3)14(4)27(1)21(2)26(1)Useoftime20(3)18(3)15(3)15(3)30(1)Internalaggregate
21(2)10(4)22(2)22(2)27(1)Committolearn
20(3)6(4)23(2)24(2)30(1)Positive
values21(2)11(4)17(3)23(2)21(2)Socialcomp.19(3)13(4)25(2)21(2)29(1)Positive
identity
22(2)5(4)23(2)20(3)28(1)ContextsPersonal
21(2)10(4)22(2)23(2)26(1)Social19(3)8(4)24(2)21(2)28(1)Family24(2)22(2)28(1)27(1)28(1)School17(3)6(4)27(1)24(2)30(1)Community17(3)8(4)16(3)18(3)18(3)
Note.Possible
scale
scores
rangefrom0to30except
thetotalaggregatescorerangeisfrom0to60.
Scorerangelevel
isinparentheses:
(1)Excellent,
(2)Good,(3)
Fair,(4)Low. Typical of the larger sample, both stayers and leavers have high scores for the family 
contextŠall excellent or good rangeŠand low community context scoresŠfair and low ranges. School is also important to these students but, 
as their DAP school context scores indicate, the school experience of the leavers is not as positive as it is for the stayers. While the characteristics 109of the particular school clearly influence student experience and perceptions, the interview data 
indicate that there are other important 
factors that differ for each student.  
Student profiles. The students look to their families as
 the primary providers of help, 
advice and other support. Family resources or asse
ts, personal and material, available to each 
student differ based on their status on a variety of factors. Table 21 presents a number of 
important family factors for each student.  
Two of the students live with both parents. The other three live with their mothers. Parents™ education levels vary from 6
th grade to a college degree.
 Employment and financial 
status also vary, from a single mother with pa
rt-time employment who struggles financially to a 
family that has not been determined eligible fo
r the federal free and reduced price lunch program 
(FRPL). Parents™ education, employment and fina
ncial status make a difference in the family 
resources available to the students. All of th
e families are relatively isolated socially.
19  Most of their contacts are with a few ex
tended family members. In the tw
o families with fathers who are 
entirely absent, mothers rely on a few friends w
ho provide material items that are unaffordable.
 The student profiles that follow Table 21 describe the demeanor 
of each at the interview, 
their participation in interview arrangements, 
their goals and manner of approaching them, and 
factorsŠincluding the influence of family and friendsŠthat contri
buted to their school choice and persistence decisions. More expansive student profiles are included in Appendix H.                                                    19 The isolation of the families in this study appears to be 
part of a cultural trend. In discussing the most recent data 
from developmental assets surveys, Benson and colleagues (Benson et al., 2011) comment on two cultural 
challenges to increasing the development assets of young people. Among those challenges are, first, the isolation of 

families from institutions and individuals that can provide 
support and, second, civic disengagement, where adults 
outside the family do not engage with young people. The effects of these changing societal norms are evident in the 
study sample in the consistently low DAP scores for th
e community context as well as in the interview data.
  110Table21.InterviewedStudents:
FamilyStatus
Studentfamilystatus
LeaversStayersStatusfactorsMarcosGiannaSamanthaDavidMarisa
LiveswithMotherMotherMotherFatherSister(age
9)MotherFatherSister(age
13)Brother(age
14)Mother
Brother(age
18)
OtherfamilyFatherabsent
Fathersometimes
FouroldersistersGrandmotherAunt&uncleCousinsFatherŒinMexicoOldersisterAunts&uncles
MexicanimmigrantMotheryesFatherŒprobably
NoBothparentsBothparentsBothparentsStudent
Parents™
EducationMother6thgrade
FatherunknownMotherHSFatherHSMotherHSFathercollege?
engineering
Motherless
than8thgradeFatherless
than8thgradeMotherelementary
Fathercollege?

Parents™
WorkMotherelder
careFatherunknownMothermedicalsecretary
Fatherretired,Waste
Mgt.MotherMedclinic
assistantFathercabinetmakerMothernotemployed
FatherconstructionMothercleans
houses
FatherHSteacherinMexico?


Siblings™
EducationNosiblings
4sistersŒallcollege
degrees
SisterŒinelementary
schoolBrotherandsister
inmiddleschoolSisterAsooc.Deg.BrotherHS
Siblings
workNAEmployed,mostprofessionalNANASisterŒpawnshopBrother?
 The fistayers.fl 
Marisa, David, and Samantha ha
ve attended ECHS for both 9th and 10th grades and became friends there. They share a 
strong drive to succeed in school and to achieve 
their college and career goals. They are confiden
t and proactive. After they volunteered to be interviewed, I contacted them to make the in
terview arrangements. Together they took the 
initiative to work with the school and handled everything, informing me of the arrangements 
111after they were complete. During the interviews, I 
found that this proactive, take-charge attitude and behavior are typical.  Though they have much in comm
on, including a drive to take 
charge of their lives, their differences came through in the interviews. Marisa™s
 attitude toward her life is one of quiet determination. She is soft-spoken an
d articulate and speaks English very well, with only a slight accent. She considered my questions and an
swered thoughtfully. David, on the other hand, 
displays a very active and assertive attitude
.  He is outgoing and engaging. By his own admission, he struggles with English at times,
 but that does not slow him down. David speaks 
freely and confidently and his answers to my
 questions were spontaneous though sometimes 
disorganized. Samantha projects calm confiden
ce. She has a slight accent but speaks English 
clearly. Samantha answered my questions easily
 and candidly. Her answers were well-organized, often elaborating without prompting.  
The children of immigrants, Marisa, Davi
d and Samantha have set high goals for 
themselves. They believe in the fiAmerican Dr
eamfl and fully expect to achieve their goals 
through education and hard work. Graduation from high school with a 
two-year college degree is their immediate focus. A college degree in a sp
ecific interest area is next, followed by a good job. Though each has identified a specific inte
rest, only Samantha, who wants to be a 
pediatrician, seems to have any sense of what 
that future job might entail, having observed and 
talked with doctors. Marisa wants a job in science, a subject she loves, and David wants to be an automotive engineer because he likes cars.  
Though they attended neighborhood schools through 8th grade, all knew that they wanted 
something different for high school. Each consider
ed schools related to his or her particular career interest. Samantha was not 
accepted to the health professions high school and so went to her second choice, ECHS. Marisa and David decided that an early college high school would be 112most beneficial. Earning an associate™s degree and a high school diploma in four years will save 
them time and money, an important benefit for a
ll three. Just as importa
nt, the independence and responsibility of the college e
nvironment will prepare them for 
college and make them more 
attractive to college admissions officers. 
The school choice decision, they all say, was entirely theirs. Typical of their proactive 
attitudes, only Samantha learned of schools th
rough a high school showcase. Marisa and David got little or no information or assistance from
 their middle schools. They learned about ECHS 
from students at the community college, Marisa 
from her older sister and David from a friend. 
Samantha™s mother, who has a high school educat
ion herself, helped Samantha follow up with 
the school when she did not get a response to her application. While the other parents fully 
supported the school decisions, they took no active role. Contrary to what might be expected for t
eenagers, according to these students friends 
played no part in the school choice decision. Though Marisa and her friends wanted to go to the same high school, she was the only one to appl
y to ECHS. David and Samantha attended the same middle school, but did not know each other 
well or talk about hi
gh schools. Neither knew that anyone else from their school was applying 
to ECHS. Samantha™s middle school friends, she 
says, fiweren™t that interested in education.fl All have become friends at ECHS and made other 
new friends there. The fileavers.fl 
Gianna and Marcos each transferred from their 9
th grade school to another District school at the beginning of 10th grade. Coincidentally, both are in the same school, HHS, 
with Marcos in the regular high school program and Gianna in 
the career magnet program. They 
attended different middle schools that feed
 into HHS so do not know each other.  
Gianna and Marcos both have the same goa
ls as the stayersŠto graduate from high 
school (though not with an associate™s degree), graduate from college, and get a good job and 113have a good life. Otherwise, in contrast to the similarity among 
the stayers, Gianna and Marcos are very different. In many ways, Gianna has more
 in common with the stayers. She is equally 
determined and focused on academic success, but sh
e is not as proactively confident. Marcos 
marches to a different drummer altogether. As a 
result, he struggles more in school and in life 
than the others. Gianna is determined to 
succeed in school and goes about it methodically. 
Marcos would like to succeed but is still 
trying to figure out how
 he might do that. 
Gianna, the only non-Hispanic student I interviewed (she is Black), has a relaxed but self-possessed manner. She spoke clearly, easily a
nd confidently and answered my questions 
comfortably and in detail, almost as though sh
e had thought about them ahead of time. Her 
relaxed but self-possessed manner and ready an
swers were not what I expected given her unusually low DAP scores. Marcos is outgoing and talkative and fidgeted throughout the interview. Though he and his mother speak only Spanish at home, his Englis
h is virtually accent free. He is not classified 
as LEP by the District. Marcos talked easily and rapidly, often so rapidly that it was difficult to 
understand him. In answering questions, he 
often elaborated beyond what was necessary, seeming to want to engage with me. Some answer
s were carefully considered, while others were spontaneous. He often changed subjects in the middl
e of an answer as something new seemed to 
strike him, even launchi
ng into long stories.   In choosing a 9th grade school, both Gianna and Marcos were attracted to technology. Gianna found out about high school options when the schools made
 presentations at her middle 
school. She and her best friend chose Tech High School (Tech) for the technology and their emphasis on group projects. Gianna™s choice was 
not related to her career goal of being a sonogram technician, a career she has researched 
in some detail. Nor was it related to her other 
114possible careers as a photographer or a teacher. As with the stayers, Gianna™s mother supported 
her choice, but did not participate in it. 
Marcos found about MBHS from his mother™s
 friend whose daughter was a student there. Like Gianna, he chose the school for the technology and group projects, but planned to learn skills for his own business creating video games. Ent
husiastic about these plans, Marcos talked at some length about what he would have to do to
 implement them, includi
ng options for different situations. He is also working on developing 
the necessary technical skills on his own.  While his friends applied to the HHS career magnet, Marcos applied to MBHS. His 
mother was the only parent among the interviewed 
students who appears to have taken a hand in choosing a school. Neither she nor Marcos investigated other schools, but he knew that his attending such a good school would make his mother proud.  
By the end of 9th grade, both Gianna and Marcos were unhappy with their chosen schools. The technology did not live up to their expectations. Gianna switched her focus to photography and transferred to a photography program in the career magnet program at HHS. 
Despite his unhappiness with the MBHS program, Marcos decided to stay. But he became a 
leaver involuntarily at the beginning of 10th grade when, for reasons that are not entirely clear, he was told not to return. Though he did not l
eave voluntarily, he had good reason to look for a better fit. Transferring to his assigned high school, HHS, was his only realistic option. Unlike Gianna, whose early decision allowed her to enroll in a specialized magnet program, Marcos had 
little choice at such a late date but to enroll in the general high school program. 
I arranged interviews with these two students with their mothers who then brought them 
to the interview room at a local branch library. 
I had several phone conversations with Marcos™s mother, in a combination of English and Spanish, 
to explain the process and to arrange and then 115change the interview time. I don™t know what role, 
if any, either Marcos or Gianna played in the interview arrangements. 
  116Section 3: The Interviews.  
In this section I first descri
be how I followed the data analysis process set forth in Chapter 3 to derive the themes and their co
mponent elements from the student interview 
responses and the resulting theoretical framework. I then de
scribe in detail the student perceptions, quoting them directly, that support the resulting theoretical framework.  
The themes. 
To address hypothesis 3, that students will perceive certain factors as 
leading to their school choice and persistence, I first analyzed the interview data using the 

inductive method described in Chapter 3 to develop a theory of what mattered to these students 
in their experience of choosing a school and either staying or leaving. I reviewed the interview transcripts twice to complete the open coding st
ep of inductive theory-building. On the first review, I considered broad themes that students be
lieved helped them to persist, or not, in their 
chosen schools and were discussed by all of the students. Five themes resulted: family, help, 
student characteristics, social, and school. On the next, more detail
ed review, I coded the student responses for those five themes, then identi
fied fourteen common types of statementsŠ
elementsŠin the responses. Figure 4 shows the 
preliminary organization 
resulting from this 
coding scheme. 
In reviewing and refining the elements, ax
ial coding, I looked for relationships among the 
elements and the themes and re-organized them to
 better reflect the student
s™ perceptions of key factors in their school persistence. Statements under the social
 theme related primarily to school, 
so I eliminated it and moved its categories to th
e school theme. Because the help theme does not 
operate in isolation, I eliminated it and moved it
s statements to the family, school, and student 
characteristics themes. 
  117 On further consideration of the student characteristics theme, it became apparent that the 
statements referred to different types of charact
eristics. Accordingly, I created two new themesŠ
sense of agency and self-efficacyŠfrom that them
e and its categories. Finally, recognizing that student statements reflect their 
own perception and experience in the family and the school, those 
themes were renamed fifamily experiencefl and fischool experience.fl 
In the last review of the themes, selective coding, I looked 
for any further relationships among the themes and connected them to two pr
imary themes, or topics: family and school 
match. One theme, a sense of agency, operates ac
ross both main topics so was assigned to both. 
During this review, I also incorporated the hypothesized factors from prior theory. Student 
responses were re-coded for each of those factor
s and the factors matched to the themes and 
Figure4.Preliminary
OrganizationoftheInterviewResponses.
 Familyo Messagesabouteducationo Support Helpo Availablehelpo Askingfor,accessingandacceptinghelpo Givinghelp Student
characteristicso Takingresponsibilityo Strengthsandweaknesses
o Student™sidentity
o Goals Socialo Friendso Otherpeerrelationships
 Schoolo Relationshipswithteachersandotheradults
o Studentdescriptionofschool
o Schoolconnection
togoals 118elements of the inductive results. 
Table 22 is the final organization of the two main topics, family 
and school match, with their related themes and 
component elements. Directly below each theme 
in the table is the positive expression of students™ perceptionsŠthe messages that came through 
in their interview responsesŠof each of the four themes. 
Though the students experienced different levels of the positive expressions, these themes emerged as important to all of them.    
 Table22.InductivelyDevelopedMainTopics,
Themes,
andElements
MaintopicsThemesElements

FamilyFamilyexperience
fiTheybelieve
inme.flMessages
about
educationHelp
andsupport
SenseofagencyfiImakeithappen.fl
Askingfor,accessing
andacceptinghelpGiving
helpTakingresponsibility

Schoolmatch
Schoolexperience
fiIfoundmyplace.fl
Relationships
within
theschool:teachers,administrators,friends
andotherpeersExperienceoftheschoolandschoolconnection
togoals
SelfefficacyfiIbelieve
Icandoit.flStrengths,weaknesses,
student
identityGoals
SenseofagencyfiImakeithappen.fl
Askingfor,accessing
andacceptinghelpGiving
helpTakingresponsibility
   119As part of this process, the hypothesized factors were evaluated against this framework. 
Those factors, as expressed in Hypothesis 3, are:   The nature of relationships with adults and/or peers at school;   The level of parental or other adult support and encouragement;  
 The level of engagement in the work;  
 The existence or lack of extracurricular activities;   Feeling safe or unsafe;   Understanding of and ability to comply with school rules;  
 Preparation for college or chosen career; 
 Bonding with or pride in the school; and   Feeling competent or incompetent to do the work and succeed.  
Of the nine hypothesized factors, four were clearly supported by the interview data for all students and fit within the themes
 and elements listed above. Th
e first factorŠthe nature of relationships with adults and/or peers at schoolŠis identical to 
the school experience element of 
relationships. The second factorŠthe level of parental or other support and encouragementŠis 
identical to the family experience element of he
lp and support. The third factorŠpreparation for 
college or chosen careerŠis identical to the goals element for self-efficacy in school match. The 
fourth factorŠbonding with or pride in the schoolŠwas seldom di
rectly mentioned, but each of 
the three stayers had a strong connection to the school. Their statements related to the school 
match topic, especially regarding their re
lationships and experience of the school.  Two of the hypothesized factorsŠfeeling safe or unsafe and existence or lack of extracurricular activitiesŠwere mentioned by on
ly some of the students. Those factors are 
important, but do not seem to have the same unive
rsal and pervasive impact as those described 
120above. Both contributed to their school experience, affecting the match between the student and 
the school, and I considered them within the el
ement of fiexperience of the school and connection to goals.fl  The remaining three hypothesized factors were 
seldom if ever mentioned by the students. 
The factor fifeeling competent or incompetent to do 
the work and succeedfl in reality is a part of a 
student™s self-efficacy. Thus, by definition, those with high self-efficacy feel competent and 
those with low self-efficacy feel incompetent. The 
factors filevel of engagement in the workfl and 
fiunderstanding of and ability to comply with sc
hool rulesfl are similarly parts of the taking 
responsibility element of a sense of agency. Ne
ither was mentioned specifically in the student 
responses.  Finally I compared the significant quantitative
 results to the theoretical framework to 
look for further information on the theoretical fr
amework. For the most part, those results were 
already incorporated into the framework. Because
 the interview sample is so small and shows 
only general differences, the responses did not add any information 
to further that analysis. The interview data do show that each student is uniq
ue and has different combinations of strengths 
and do not necessarily match the broad statistical conclusions from the larger sample. 
Students™ perceptions of their experience.20 The theoretical framework derived from 
the students™ interview responses (Table 22) summa
rizes their perceptions of key factors in their level of school success and persis
tence. What matters most to these students in both the school 
choice decision and their school persistence is expressed in the two main themes: the family and 
the match between the student and the chosen sch
ool. Consistent with the quantitative results,                                                  20 Student statements quoted in the remainder of this chapte
r are all from personal interviews conducted in the spring 
of 2014. Marisa, David, and Samantha were interviewed on May 16, Gianna on June 10, and Marcos on June 11. 
121these topics operate somewhat differently in the choice decision than they do in persistence. The themes and their elements, however, are essentially the same for both.  
In describing the themes developed from th
e student interviews, I note differences among the students, particularly differe
nces between stayers and leavers.
 I do not pretend to generalize these five students to all stayers and leavers. 
These particular students do, however, present a variety of characteristics, both personal and family, that ar
e not uncommon in the larger 
population (Tables 19 and 21). The themes derived fr
om their experiences, then, are informative, 
giving us a sense of what might be
 important for other students.  Family experience: fiThey believe in me.fl 
 The importance of the family indicated by 
the universally high DAP family context scores is
 clearly supported, at least for these students, 
by the interviews. (See Table 21, above, for key char
acteristics of the students™ families.) All of 
the interviewed students express the sense that their families believe in them, but the stayers do 

so more clearly than the leavers. Despite the cons
istently positive perceptions they have of their families, the level and kind of support the students 
receive differs based on the family™s personal 
and material resources. Overall, the stayers™ fa
milies have more of th
ese resources than the 
leavers™ families, though there are some exceptions. 
All look to and depend on their families for 
support, advice and encouragement. Gianna 
expressed this most clearly when asked why sh
e believed she could reach her goals and worked toward them when many of her peers did not. Re
ferring to her mother a
nd her older sisters she said, fiI don't think other people my age have peop
le they can look to as a role model like I do 
and anybody to support them and give them that 
boost that they need to do well in school, or anything like that.fl  Marcos also looks to his family, which consists only of his mother, but she 
has far fewer resources, both material and otherw
ise, to offer him. At the same time, he 
appreciates what she does give him. 
122All live with their mothers and fiMomfl plays 
a central role in their lives. When asked 
who they can count on for help, three of the five students immediately named their mothers. 
Samantha added that, fiWe have a really close 
relationship and so far we™ve been good. She™s supported me in everything.fl Marisa names her mo
ther, saying, fiShe™s always been there. I mean, she™s really the only person that I have.fl
 David, who lives with both parents, named both 
mother and father. Marcos, the lone wolf whose mother is least able to provide support for her son, talked about her efforts to provide for his physical needs, including economic help from her 
friends, and the advice she gives him: fiShe always keeps the fridge full . . . and she has really a 
lot of friends who get donated clothes . . . and any time she has the money, she™ll buy me the 
stuff I need. . . . She gives me lots of advice, like 
‚don™t do this™ or listen to me . . . or she even 
gives me quotes from what people say so
 that I can rethink my actions.fl   Fathers also matter to these students, even if 
it™s only because of their absence.  Some 
miss the support they would expect from a father
. Marcos is somewhat wistful, though matter of 
fact, when he says, fiIt™s just me and my mom. 
I have, uh, my dad is, I don™t know . . . where he is right now.fl  Gianna™s father is sometimes in her life but, she says:  
The times my dad wasn™t around it was very hard
 for me to focus in school and that just, 
like, really brought me down. And I sometimes wi
shed that I had some support, like more 
support from him. . . . I can say that most 
students that have support from their mother 
and their father have it easier than just one parent alone.  Except for David, who refers to both parents more often than to either one separately, 
when present the father™s direct influence, though important, is less th
an the mother™s. When 
asked about encouragement from her family, Sama
ntha replies, fiMy mom and my dad . . . but 
mainly it™s my mom who encourages me, my da
d doesn™t really do that.fl About her mom she 
says, fiShe™s always encouraging me, she™s always
 giving me advice.fl She talks in detail about 
123her mother™s constant involvement in monitoring her school work, but about her dad, she says 
only, fiHe just says work hard for it [school 
success], and, um, keep doing what you™re doing, 
like keep it up.fl Students report relatively few other relatives in
 their lives, leaving them and their families 
isolated from some potential s
ources of support. Gianna mentions her grandmother as someone 
she can ask for help and relies on her older sisters as role models.  David relies on his cousins for 
advice and homework help. Marisa
 talks about some help from
 aunts and uncles, saying, fiMy family sticks together, we support 
each other and everything . . .  and, like, my aunts and uncles, 
they see how my mom str
uggles and they always try to help us. . . . It™s just family, we stick 
together.fl But Marcos and Samantha have no or 
limited extended family contact.   Overall these 
students rely primarily on their nuclear familie
s, particularly their mothers, for support and 
guidance.  Messages about education. All of the interviewed students get messages from their 
parents about the importance of 
education and of working hard and doing well in school. Often those messages are direct but sometimes they ar
e indirectŠimplicit in the family expectations 
and the role models, both positive and negative, in 
students™ lives. These expectations and role 
models are among the personal resources that differ substantially among the students. The 
leavers mention fewer direct messages than 
the stayers. Both get indirect messages. 
Marisa™s mother tells her fithat school is ever
ything, that school is the key to your future, and if you take advantage of your school right now, you can be something big and you won™t 
have to work so much in the future.fl Marisa 
describes her siblings as negative role models 
whose example she does not want to follow. Her older sister cut her college education short when she suffered personal problems; her older brother graduated from high school but has no 
124plans to enroll in college. Her mother tells her, 
fiBe better than me, be be
tter than your sister or brother . . . I have hopes with you.fl  David receives similar messages from both of
 his parents: fiMy dad, my mom, always 
want me to have [an] education. . . . My da
d, he doesn™t want me to work like him in 
construction in the sun or in the cold. And he wants me to have, like, something, at least 
education or have a good job.fl They also tell him 
education is the key to 
reaching his goals, that 
if he wants something he has to fistudy for it . . 
. you want to be somewhere in life, be something 
and, like, have great things, you gotta [sic] study.fl Their overall advice is, fitry my best, never 
give up, and whenever you need help, that we™re there.fl A cousin with whom David has a close 
relationship is a role model, both positive and 
negative. Though he dropped out of high school 
and works as an auto mechanic, he encourages
 David to stay in school and helps him with 
homework. Influenced by work with his cousin, Da
vid also is interested in working with cars, but unlike his cousin, he plans on a college degree and a career as an au
tomotive engineer.    Like Marisa™s and Jonathan™s parents, Sama
ntha™s parents also encourage and support her education. Unlike the others, though, Samantha™s mo
ther is directly involved in her education. fiMy mom, she™s really strict on me. Every day sh
e™s, like, don™t you have homework to do? . . . 
And then she™s, um, aware of my grades . . . sh
e contacts the teachers.fl  
When Samantha was not 
doing well academically in eighth grade, her 
mother fiwould get mad at me for not doing good 
[sic] in school. And that made me realize I had to 
step up my game, I can™t stay right here. I have 
to be, have to improve.fl 
Gianna™s messages about education are mo
re indirect, coming primarily from the 
example of her older sisters w
ho are all college graduates and from the apparent implicit 
assumption that she will follow their lead. He
r mother has supported her school choices but, 
Gianna says, fiIt was absolutely my choice.fl Though less involved, her father™s message is more 
125direct: fiStay in school cuz [sic] that™s what
™s gonna get you through life.fl Marcos has had a difficult time in school, being fikicked outfl of two and struggling in others. Though he doesn™t say it explicitly, it is obvious that his mother tried to find good schools for him. Her friend 
recommended MBHS and she suppor
ted that idea. Marcos applied to that school because, fiYeah, it was one of the best schools there is, or so I heard so, so I wanted to, like, make her proud, so 
went there.fl Marcos also says that he needs an education to be able to help his mother 
financially: fiMy mom is barely able
 to pay the bills . . . so it™s kinda [sic] hard. I got to go ahead and try to get . . . [an] education.fl In response to messages their parents give 
them about education, each student expresses 
some form of the fiAmerican Dreamfl as a goal an
d a motivator for efforts in school. The drive 
toward the American dream is strongest in the stay
ers, all children of immigrants. Nearly all of 
the messages from their parents about school and 
education focus on fibeing better than I am.fl 
David is particularly proud of the fact that, fiwhen I graduate [from high 
school], I™ll be the first 
one to graduate from my whole family.fl In speaki
ng of his parents, David says they want him to 
have an education and more opportunity because, fiboth of them were born in Mexico, and they 
only, like, didn™t even finish middle school.fl Mari
sa™s mother, as noted above, tells her to fibe 
better than me, be better than your
 sister or brother.fl Samantha, 
too, is aware that her mother™s 
fieducation wasn™t really good so . . . I have to, like, make the difference.fl Though Gianna does 
not report such a direct message about being fib
etter,fl she clearly articulates the American 
Dream when she says:   
I always wanted to make my family proud, 
and I knew that school was going to get me 
through that, get me to college, have a good j
ob, have a big house with the white picket fence everyone dreams of, so I knew that if 
I wanted that I would have to do that in school. 126Parents have high hopes that their children will have better and easier lives than they have had. As a result of those messages from their 
parents, stayers and leavers alike believe that 
education is the key to a secure and happy future and that hard work is necessary to get there. All aspire to that goal. The stayers have identified an education and career plan
 to reach that goal and are certain that with hard work they will be succ
essful. The leavers are less 
certain of their ability 
to reach the dream. Even Gianna, who has role m
odels to show her the way, is uncertain of how directly she can get there. She is
 considering several different careers and of her future, she says,  I know I™m going to college. I know
 that for a fact. But I want to go back in and out of college because I know how expensive college is. Hopefully I make up my mind [as to a 
career path] at the end of this year, so . . . I™ll get a grip of something.  
Marcos is even less sure of the success of his future plans. He plans to go to college and hopes 
for a scholarship. If he doesn™t get that, which seems unlikely given his academic problems, he 
would start a fitax businessfl with his mother, finot permanently, just [to earn money to go to 
college and] in case I get fired from a job or
 something like that, which I™m hoping doesn™t 
happen.fl His uncertainty contrasts with the absolute confidence of the three stayers. 
Help and support.  Their families™ limited resources restrict the level of help and support 
that is available. Understanding that their families, 
especially their parents, believe in them is the 
key form of support. Each family does what it can 
to help and support its student™s efforts to get an education. Personal resources within the family are most impor
tant, though material resources 
rise in importance for those whose fathers are 
entirely absent. (Marisa and Marcos each talk 
about their mother™s financial struggles while the others do not.)  Fairly typical of families in poverty, and 
especially immigrant families, personal 
resourcesŠthe knowledge, experience and ability to
 successfully navigate the requirements of 
particular situations and institutionsŠare limite
d among the families of the interviewed students. 
127As a result, most are unable to provide much help
 or guidance in matters related to school. Most 
have little education themselves and no experi
ence with the United Stat
es education system. 
Only one parent, of a stayer, monitors her 
daughter™s homework and grades and communicates 
regularly with teachers. Beyond believing in them, the one kind of help and support all of the parents provide for the students is the assurance that they stand behi
nd them, support their de
cisions with regard to school, and are available to help whenever it™s needed. David™s description of the support he receives from his parents shows their unconditional willingness to do anything they can:  My parents always support me. For example, 
they need to do paperwork or anything, my parents were always there and, like, [pauses] cuz I know like the choices I make is for my 
own good, which will affect me 
later in the future. And, like, whatever I wanted or 
needed to do for school, they were always there for anything.  
When Samantha did not get a response to her 
ECHS application, she cal
led the school to follow up. When asked whether she or her mother deci
ded to call the school, she answered, fiWe both 
decided it, cuz [sic] they said they were going to send us a letter. We never received it, so I was, 
like, well, I™ll give it a shot first, and then if not . . . you can call next.fl Their efforts were 
successful.  This unconditional family support carries ove
r to the school choice decision which is 
entirely the responsibility of these students, even when a family member suggests a school. 
Marisa™s sister attended the community colleg
e affiliated with ECHS and recommended ECHS 
to her, but Marisa took the initiative to learn about the school and the application process. Of her mother™s role in the school choice decision, she says, fiShe supported me. She said ‚whatever you 
want to do I™m behind you, and if you ever need me
, just tell me.fl Similarly, Gianna says, fiMy 
mother supported me, whatever sc
hool I wanted to go to, but it was absolutely my choice.fl This 
128was the case for her original choice of 9
th grade school and the change to a new school for 10th grade. As previously described, the interviewed students, with the possible exception of David, turn first to their mothers when they need help or
 advice. Fathers, when in the picture, are usually second. Siblings and other relatives are sometimes mentioned as well, but in limited ways. 

Generally, students don™t ask family members for 
academic help because they do not have the 
necessary knowledge. As Marisa says, fiReally I have to just depend on the teachers if I had a 
problem, cuz at home nobody really knows what I'm talking about.fl Though David doesn™t ask his 
parents for help with school work, he does turns to his cousin and to teachers and staff at school. 
The stayers all report readily turning to their parents for help and advice on personal and other issues. The leavers are less likely to do so. Marcos does not like to ask for help at all, saying, fiI don't 
really like asking people for help . . . I just do that on my own,fl 
though he does get some 
homework help from his girlfrie
nd.  Gianna asks her mother for 
advice, but prefers not to talk about personal issues such as problems with fr
iends: fiI usually don't like talking to many people 
about real, real personal things. I try to keep it within me
 and that other person.fl   This backdrop of apparently unconditional support and the belief in their child™s ability to do what is necessary to succeed in school is 
certainly a powerful motivator for these five 
students. Though varying with the level of support, it leads to confidence in making the school 
choice decision and the decision whether to leave a chosen school. Most feel adequate to the task and grow in confidence. At least one of the leavers, however, has been less successful. Though Marcos usually expresses confidence and certainty, realistically based on past experience his plans always include a contingency for failure.   
Sense of agency: fiI make it happen.fl
 The interviewed students™ sense of agency 
operates both at home and at school. Their families™ clear messages about the importance of 

education combined with their limited resour
ces leave them with a drive to succeed and 
129essentially in charge of their own education. How well they navigate the school system in pursuit of that success depends to a great extent on thei
r willingness and ability to take control, make 
their own plans, and make those plans happen. All 
of these students are active choosers. Four of them, including the three stayers, made that c
hoice entirely on their own, demonstrating both 
willingness and ability to take control. They clea
rly understand that if they don™t take control, no 
one will. This sense of agency and the confid
ence and energy with which they actively make 
things happen are striking.  Agency goes beyond belief in the ability to do 
something. As used here, it requires action 
toward a purpose. (Self-efficacy, defined here as the student™s belief that he or she can do what is necessary to succeed, underlies the sense of agency
 and is discussed further below.) It requires 
actively seeking and using resources toward that purpose. One hallmark of the sense of agency 
for these students is their seeking out, accessi
ng, and accepting appropriate
 help to reach their 
goals.  Asking for, accessing, and accepting help. 
While the family experience theme focuses on 
the resources, including help and support, experienced by the student within the family, a key 
element of the agency theme is using help from the family as well as outside help. In the 

interviews, the stayers talked much more than the 
leavers about their use of help at home and at 
school. They make sure they know what help is 
available and how to access it. At home they 
readily approach parents and other family member
s for advice and help with problems. At school 
they take advantage of scheduled tutoring when
 needed. They cultivate positive relationships 
with teachers and administrative staff and learn th
e type of help to ask for from each. They know 
when teachers are available to students and wh
ere to find them. They choose friends who are 
good role models and count on those friends for he
lp as well as offering help in return.  130Beyond the statements of encouragement and 
support they receive, the three stayers ask their families for help that is primarily personal.
 Marisa and Samantha bot
h ask their mothers for 
help. As Marisa says, fiI can talk to my mom about anything. Sh
e really helps me and gives me 
advice. David asks fimy dad, my mom, both pare
ntsfl and his cousin for help with personal issues. Other than David, who asks his cousin, 
these students do not ask their families for help 
with school-related matters. Because their fam
ilies do not have the knowledge or experience to 
help them, they rely instead on school personnel 
and friends for that kind of help. Teachers, 
administrators and friends at school are resour
ces for personal help as well. The stayers know that the teachers are generally 
available in their classrooms or
 their offices. As David says, fiThey™re always in their office. Like right now I think they™re in their office, they only have . . . from four to five [classes]. So they™re usually 
there from nine to 11 or from eight to 11.fl 
On academic questions, David says that one
 way his teachers would describe him is 
fiwhen I need help I always go to them.fl Samantha describes herself similarly: fiAnd if 
something™s hard for me, then I go and ask for help
 if I can™t do it myself.fl
 Marisa asks for help and takes advantage of tutoring: fiI always go to tutoring. I ask for help with anything I need.fl They are comfortable asking for that help, describing their teachers as finice and helping,fl and fireally, really friendly,fl and fiaccessi
ble at any time.fl They know this because they have made 
the effort to ask for help to cultivate positive re
lationships with adults in the school. Each names 
more than one specific person they are comforta
ble with. Samantha names a particular teacher 
she asks for help. David and Marisa, as member
s of the Ambassadors Club, name the advisor for 
that group as a trusted source of help and advice, both personal and academic. David talks about 
the principal: fiHe™s really good. He really helps a lot. . . .  Like, anything I need or need any help, he was always there.fl Another, named by both
 Marisa and Samantha is the school registrar. 
In particular, Samantha says,  
131I would go up to him a lot. I feel like I can tr
ust him. I have confidence in him. And not 
only would I talk to him about my personal 
life, but about my education and ask him 
what I should do. Or if I feel like I™m not 
understanding a teacher, what should I do to understand him or her more? 

Friends are both role models a
nd an important source of help for the stayers.  This is 
perhaps the greatest contrast betw
een the stayers and the leavers.
 In contrast with her middle 
school friends who fiweren™t that interested in education,fl Samantha™s high school friends are 
fikind. They™re responsible. And all the friends I have focus on their education. . . . They have no tolerance for drugs.fl She especially asks her best friend, who is fion top of her goals . . . 
determined . . . a straight A student [and] rea
lly smartfl for help with
 both personal and school issues. Her friends, Marisa says, fiare kinda [sic
] like me. They're like studious, they're really 
committed, they're, um, straight A students as well. They're funny, they're weird, they're crazy, 

and I really like them. . . . My friends, they're 
always there for me.fl  David has made friends 
with upperclassmen who, he says, fihelp me a lot a
nd they™re more mature, they™re like more into 
school. Like they help me think of, like, what cla
sses to take, and they™re really serious and they help me a lot.fl 
The leavers also access and use help, but to a lesser extent. Gianna is much like the 
stayers in her use of help, but she mentions fe
wer people as helpers. At home she asks her 
mother, grandmother and older sist
ers for advice, but gives few details of the kind of help. She is more specific about who helps and the kind of help she asks for at school.  She develops relationships with teachers whom she can ask fo
r help and takes advantage of tutoring sessions offered by the school.  At both her 9th and 10th grade schools she talks about particular teachers she has asked for help both personal and school related.  Of one 9th grade teacher she says,  
132I know I can count on him. He actually was the one to give me, well he gave me a little 
bit of motivation and push to, um, strive and go 
to [HHS] . . .  he was the one teacher that 
I could really talk to. Like I knew I could depend on him. And he
 just always told me that 
if I needed any help or advice that I could call him or talk to him. 
 Gianna also mentions two English teachers at her new school whom she can count on for 
advice or other help. Though she generally describes the teachers at her first school as understanding in class, other than the three specific examples 
above, she does not describe the teachers in either school as helpful outside of
 class. Nor does she talk about a personal 
relationship with administrators. 
All she says about the principal at her first school is that fiI didn™t see her much. I didn™t hear from her much. 
I didn™t feel like she wa
s very involved.fl By contrast, she describes the principal at her second school as being, fion the announcements every 
day, at almost all the games, all the functions th
at we have. He seems ve
ry intuitive with the 
school.fl Though she sees this principal as a positive feature of the school, she does not see him 
as a source of help for her own issues. While Gianna asks for help from some a
dults at school, she does not have the same 
relationships with friends that the stayers rely on as role models and for help and advice. Though 
she and her best friend chose and attended Tech together, the friend stayed when Gianna left after the first year. One reason she 
gives for this is that, fiI think she made a little bit more friends 
than me.fl Of herself she says,  
It wasn't that I couldn't make friends, cuz I'
m a very outgoing person. It was just . . . I 
didn't have an interest in it. Like, when I go 
to school I'm there to learn, like that's the 
sole purpose of attending. . . . So when they were doing all this extra stuff like dances and 
parties and stuff, I wasn't so interest
ed, so I wasn't making as many friends. 
133One reason Gianna gives for changing to HHS is that it is in the neighborhood where she has always lived and she knows everybody. At the same time, when asked about friends in the 
neighborhood who encourage her, she answers:  Nobody like that. It™s not like I™m very, like, clos
e to, I mean I have some friends that live 
in the neighborhood, we™ve been going to school together since kindergarten. But there™s not, like, any person that could influence me
 to do something or not do something.fl  
With her more limited relationships with bot
h adults and peers at 
school, Gianna lacks the kinds of help that the stayers describe. This may be a function of the culture of the schools she attended.  At the same time, she holds hersel
f somewhat aloof from those around her, even in 
the school she calls her fisecond home away from
 homefl where she fiknows everybody.fl Marcos, 
on the other hand, is a self-described filone wolf.fl He does not like to ask for help or advice, either personal or academic. He does get occa
sional homework help from his girlfriend and 
another friend, but is uncomfortable with that. While Gianna describes tutoring availability as one of the best things about the school, Marcos does not attend those tutoring sessions. His reasoning is that:  There's tutoring, but tutoring all are only in th
e mornings, which, aren't really, isn't really 
helpful. . . . There's kids who can't go becau
se they take a bus. . . . Some people, they, 
even if they try to wake up, it™s hard for them to wake up really early. Me, for one.fl 
  This is not surprising as sleepiness and boredom are part of hi
s identity. On asking teachers for help at school he says, fiTruth is, no, I just asked if they could like maybe . . . do a little bit more 
interesting. They said, okay, but I didn't s
ee it. I didn't see the 
interesting later on.fl It is possible that his refusal to ask for help
 is rooted in past experience where he didn™t 
get the help he asked for. Marcos is not a typical student and typically available help may not 
suit his needs. It could also be that, because of
 his attitude and past history, those who provide 
134help may not react positively to him.
21 Certainly his past failures, whatever the cause, affect his 
current attitudes.  Though I have identified the use of help and school relationships as separate elements of 
the family and school experience themes, they 
are interconnected. The process of seeking out, accessing, and using help builds generally positive re
lationships that, in turn, improve the school 
match and bonding to the school. Some of the stude
nts were critical of their middle school and 
its teachers, saying they were not available to 
students and not helpful. For those who take 
advantage of it, the accessibility to help is an important factor in bonding with the school.    Giving help. Helping others further demonstrates the students™ belief that their actions 
make a difference. Though less common than usi
ng help, all of these students talked about helping others, often as an important part of their 
identity. Marisa says one of her strengths is fiI like to help people. . . . My mom taught me to al
ways help.fl At home, her mother is taking an 
English class and Marisa helps her with that. 
After college she wants to figet a good job and hopefully just start helping my mo
m and give back what she gave me.fl She and her friends help 
each other and, she says, fiThey can depend 
on me whenever they need [anything].fl 
David and Marisa are members of a group that
 serves the school community as well as 
the larger community and both help fellow students with personal 
and academic issues. David in 
particular sees helping others as a large part of who he is and actively pursues opportunities to help, whether it be fellow students, the school or in the larger community. In describing the Ambassadors Club, where both he and Marisa are ve
ry active members, he says, fiWe help the 
community, we represent our school very well, and whenever anybody needs help, um, we can                                                  21 Werner and Smith (1998) noted this phenomenon in their longitudinal study of children beginning at birth, 
observing that happy infants elicited positive responses from adults while unhappy infants elicited negative 

responses. Those responses in turn affected the infants™ future behavior in an example of Bronfenbrenner™s  (2005a) 
interactive feedback loop.  
135help them.fl They are carefully chosen as lead
ers in the school with some responsibility for 
culture and climate. As David says, fiIf we see 
something that should no
t happen or anything, we 
had to, like, tell the office. . . . For example, if
 we see bullying, we got to report it.fl They also 
represent their school at inform
ation and recruiting fairs. David also belongs to another community service group that volunteers at public and non-profit events in the city, doing such things as fihelp out with the kids, being in the . . . game booths . . . and help out in the heavy 
stuff.fl  
Marisa and David also both help their classmates with homewor
k and school-related problems. When others need help, says David, fiI™m
 always there when they need help, especially freshmen, like when they need help with anythi
ng.fl Marisa, too, helps classmates. For example, 
science is easy for her so, she says, fiI saw other students struggle with it,
 and then once I taught them, they™re like, oh yeah, this is easy.fl Both 
take their responsibilities seriously and are proud of the work they do. They have matured through 
the experience and the confidence they have developed is obvious when talking with them. Marisa, in particular
, recognizes the benefits when she says, fiI used to be really shy, like never liked talking to anybody. But then I got the Ambassador Club and that really helped me. 
Now I just can really talk to anybody.fl  Though not as active as her classmates, Samant
ha also helps others in and outside of school.  She volunteers at church every week where she helps with paperwork and registration 
for children™s programs. She seems surprised but
 proud of the confidence they have in her, telling her, fiyou™re a blessing . . . you really know how to manage, you™re responsible, you™re organized.fl  The experience has boosted her conf
idence. Samantha also feels responsibility 
toward her family, especially her younger sist
er. She wants to live at home while attending college because her family, especially her younger 
sister, will need her support. Her goal is to attend a college in commuting distance because: 
136 I wouldn't want to move that far from my 
family, cuz [sic] I know they also need my 
support. I have a little sister and, like I said before, my pa
rents don't have a really good, 
they didn't have a good education, so I feel like
 if I move, my sister
 could be affected by that. So if I stay here and, hopefully I get in, I can help her. Gianna and Marcos, both leavers, are not engaged in community or other organized work, 
but do describe helping other students at school with their work. Gi
anna sees one of her strengths in helping others to understand the work and says her teachers would describe her as being fithere when you need help,fl and fiI can tutor you.fl  Marcos likes to work in a group and help the group members get the work done. He 
collects scrap metal to help with family finances
 and wants to help his mother economically in 
the future, to figet more money to be able to, lik
e, get our house done.fl He has broader desires to help the larger community through 
his concern for the plight of stray dogs. He and his mother 
have taken in stray dogs. Though his career goals include becoming a video game developer, his 
first priority is to create a video game to raise 
awareness of the problem. He says, fiI don™t really 
want the money, I just want people to be concerned with the animals.fl  
The leavers are not as engaged in helping as are the stayers and so do not reap the same 
benefits in confidence and increased maturit
y. Though Gianna helps classmates, she does not 
describe the kind of reciprocal helping relationship with friends th
at Marisa and David talk about nor does she interact with a larger group.  Marcos describes a desire to help, and occasionally doing so, but his helping instincts do not translate into much in the way of action.  
As the children of single mothers, Marcos a
nd Marisa both talk about wanting to help their mothers economically in the future. Marcos
 collects scrap metal to help with finances. 
Marisa helps her mother study for 
her English language class.  137Taking responsibility. Taking on responsibility, especially for their education, is another manifestation of the sense of agency. As with usin
g and giving help, this element of the sense of 
agency theme requires action on the part of the stud
ent. It is more than being given responsible 
roles by others. The key difference lies in taking control. The stayers all took responsibility for choosing and applying to a 9th grade school. Samantha had some help from her mother, but 
Marisa and David were on their own. When it was time to choose a 9
th grade school, Marisa says she fiwasn™t really informed about much, 
about how to apply or anything.fl Many 8th grade students don™t take the initiative to do what Marisa did: fiI actually had to go to my counselor. . . 
So I just talked to my counsel
or to see what I had to do, what are the requirements for this 
school, and she gave me the applicat
ions and I just filled them out and just sent them in here.fl 
Her mother supported her in the process but did not
 have the experience or knowledge to take an advisory or other active role.  Samantha explains the difference in motiva
tion between herself and others in middle 
school by saying, fiThey didn™t focus on their education much. If they didn™t understand, they 
would just copy off, and I would actually . . . go and ask the teacher cuz, I mean it had to benefit 
me. Like it was gonna [sic] benefit me if I 
didn™t know it.fl When it came time to choose a 9
th grade school, she decided, fiWell, it™s up to me no
w. I have to make a choice of where I want to 
go.fl In school she says her teachers would describe her as firesponsible . . . prepared in every class.fl She is proud of that fact. The differences between stayers and leavers ar
e less evident here. Again, Gianna is more 
like the stayers and any differences are more a matte
r of degree than of substance. She describes 
putting herself in AP classes fifor two reasons: on
e, to push myself and two, to get away from 
troublemakers in my classrooms.fl Of a college re
adiness program (AVID), she says, fiI felt that 
gave me the extra, like, push, too, to get into a 
college. . . . After they put me in there, my 7
th 138grade year, I felt like that was a great program for me, so I decided to take it in 8
th and 9th grade.fl  These are not something Gianna™s mother did for 
her, or told her to do, but something she took 
the responsibility to do for herself. 
Marcos is less willing or able to take responsibility just as he is less willing to seek out or use help. He has suffered more failures than the ot
her students and seldom attributes them to his 
own action or inaction. Some of this
 attitude likely comes from the 
fact that he has had trouble in school for years. He first reports being kicked out of a private school in 6th grade fifor doing something I didn™t even commit. In other words,
 the . . . whole class hated me. I didn™t know 
why.fl Other efforts to choose a school, or to stay in a chosen school, have led to similar results. 
When he took the entrance test for a magnet school for 7
th grade he says, fiI did not understand a single thing that they gave me . 
. . so I wasn™t able to go to such school.fl  Finally, though he had problems in 9
th grade at MBHS, he intended to return there the next year. But he figot kicked out for being absent for just on the first day.fl He says he does not understand why, just that he missed the bus and figot a call sayi
ng that the principal has my pa
pers ready so that I could be signed out.fl Given this history of failure that he believes he could not control, it is not surprising that Marcos believes that he cannot control his future. He has much higher DAP scores in all areas than does Gianna, but it seems that her belie
f that she is in control motivates her to take 
responsibility for her future and work diligently toward her goals. 
The three stayers and Gianna primarily take 
responsibility for their education and the work necessary to achieve their goals. All of th
e students, including Marc
os, have similar goals 
for the future: to graduate from high school, to ea
rn a college degree, and to find a good job that pays well. All are moving toward particular fiel
ds that interest them
. Some have taken the 
initiative to research college entrance requireme
nts and the requirements to enter their chosen 
fields. They work every day to move toward thei
r goals. Marcos™s goals are similar but he also 
139has contingency plans in case of failure at any point. While the ot
hers have charted a single path and expect to follow it, successfully handling any obstacles along the way, Marcos does not believe he can control what happens to him and, 
as a result, has given a lot of thought to other possibilities.  When faced with everyday problems, Gianna, 
Samantha, David and Marisa act to resolve 
them. They ask for help when they need it.
 They purposely choose challenging schools and classes. They take responsibility for everything from such simple actions as asking to close the 
classroom door against hallway 
distractions (Gianna) to finding ways to make boring classes 
interesting (David) to refusing to ever give up in
 the face of problems (Marisa and Samantha). In 
short, they focus on their goals and the everyday actions that are necessary to achieve them. 
David™s and Marcos™s opposite attitudes toward 
boring classes illustrate the extremes of the 
differences between these stayers and leavers. 
While Marcos asks the teachers to fimake the 
classes more interestingfl and complains that
 they don™t, David takes the responsibility on himself: fiI have to make things interesting so 
I can like, get good grades, like, I can understand it better, understand the work better.fl 
 School experience: fiI found my place.fl As would be expected, the clearest difference between stayers and leavers is in their perceptions of their schools: stayers believe they have found their place in their chosen 9th grade school while the leavers ar
e sure that they did not. At the same time, both leavers 
are hopeful about their 10th grade school.    Though students tend to choose schools based 
on external factors such as academic 
reputation or the programs offered, the match 
between the student and the school is more 
complicated than that. The interview responses i
ndicate that the reality of daily life in a school matters most for student persiste
nce. That reality can vary based on how an individual student experiences it. The interviews reveal two elemen
ts of particular importa
nce in the decision to 
140leave a school or to stay: relationships in the school and the connection between the school and the student™s needs and goals.  
Relationships within the school: teachers, administrators, friends and other peers.  The relationships of students with adults and peers in a school are a primary factor in school 
persistence. Positive connections to the people 
in the school enhance the connections to the 
school itself. Accessible, helpfu
l and supportive adults and comp
atible peers are key to the formation of positive relationships. For the three 
stayers and Gianna, building relationships with 
fihelpfulfl teachers and administrato
rs is a necessary part of seeking and using help at school.  For these students, teachers are as important 
outside the classroom as within it, if not 
more so. The stayers commented very positively a
bout the availability of teachers for help and 
support, both academic and personal. Marisa sums
 it up when she says, fiAll the teachers are really nice with helping. They make it where 
to the point where you can just go in their rooms 
and just start talking to them and they are real
ly, really friendly.fl David echoes that, noting that the teachers fiare always in their 
officefl and accessible to students. And Samantha says, fiI like 
that the teachers, they attend th
e students. They help them with
 anything they want and they're 
accessible at any time.fl She goes says about one t
eacher who has been particularly helpful, fiHe gives me good advice, helps me.fl  
Through their participation in the Ambassa
dors Club, both Marisa and David developed strong relationships with administrative staff. A
ccording to Marisa, fithe ambassadors are really, really close to Ms. S . . . so with anything we need we always go to her.fl David agrees and says he also gets academic help from Ms. S, filike es
pecially for essays . . 
. and she helps in other 
things, too.fl Both the principal and the school registrar are mentioned as very friendly and helpful as well. Samantha says of the registrar, fiI
 would go up to him a lot. 
I feel like I can trust 141him, have confidence in him . . . . I would talk 
to him about my personal life [and] my education 
and ask him what I should do.fl 
My own observations and interactions with admi
nistrators at ECHS were consistent with 
the student descriptions. Both the principal and re
gistrar were very helpful to me in everything 
from arranging a meeting with all of the 10
th grade students to working with the students to facilitate the interviews. Students, not just thos
e interviewed, were very clearly comfortable with 
both of them. The registrar, in particular, seemed
 to spend most of his time talking with students 
who wanted his help. I met several other administ
rators, including Ms. S, and all were friendly and positive toward the students.  For the stayers, the availability of friendly 
and helpful teachers and administrators creates 
a positive and supportive climate in the school th
at encompasses relationships among the adults 
and, for the most part, among the students. fiI think that since our school is small, everybody 
knows each other,fl says Marisa. fiEveryone knows
 all the teachers and it's a good relationship. 
Everyone has a good relationship with each other.fl 
As to the teachers specifically, Samantha says, fiThe teachers have a really good rela
tionship [and] have a good attitude toward each 
other.fl As a result, Marisa, David and Samantha are comfortable in
 the school and feel that they belong there. All express a strong connection to the school and the plan to stay in that school until they graduate.  
The leavers™ relationships with adults in thei
r schools differ from those of the stayers.  
The differences for Gianna are more a matter 
of degree than substance, while Marcos has 
virtually no relationships. Though her 9th grade school did not suit her in other ways, Gianna still 
talks positively about the school ba
sed essentially on the availabili
ty of help from the teachers 
and the connections she made with them. In genera
l, she says of the teachers, fiThey were just very understanding in class. Like they would take the time and, like, stop and get to you that 
142moment.fl And of one teacher she says, fiI know
 I can count on himfl for personal as well as 
academic advice. In her 10
th grade school she gets help and advice from fia couple of my English 
teachers.fl Gianna does not describe a relationship 
with any of the school administrators in her 9
th or 10th grade schools. When asked she says she doesn™t feel her 9th grade principal fiwas very 
involved.fl But she describes her 10
th grade principal positively, as present fion the announcements every day . . . [and] at almost all th
e games, all the functions we have.fl Then she 
adds, fiHe seems very intuitive with the school.fl  Li
ke the stayers, Gianna connects with teachers 
whom she asks for help; but unlike the stayers, he
r experience with other school staff is indirect. Of his 9th grade school, Marcos says fithe teachers are pretty much okayfl though the 
ficlasses are boring.fl Elaborating further he says, fiWe had to do page this, and this, and this. So, 
in other words, the teachers aren™t really doi
ng their job.fl  He does note that he enjoyed two 
classes that were taught differentlyŠmore in keep
ing with his preferred learning style. At the 
same time, Marcos does not talk to these or othe
r teachers or ask for help. Likewise, he had no contact with the principal in 9
th grade and his only contact with the new principal in that school 
the following year was to be fikicked outfl by him.  
Peers, especially friends, play a large role in
 the interviewed students™ connection to their 
schools. The stayers report having friends at school who are like them in goals and attitudes 
toward school, and help each other. Marisa descri
bes her friends as fikinda [sic] like me. They™re 
studious, they™re really committed, they™re straig
ht A students as well. They™re weird, they™re 
crazy, and I really like them.fl Similarly, Sama
ntha™s friends are fikind . . . responsiblefl and fifocus on their education.fl For David, friends who are fimore maturefl and fimore into school.fl 
are important. All, as described earlier, help 
their friends and rely on help from them.  
Neither of the leavers made many friends in their 9
th grade schools. Marcos is a loner by nature. His only comment about hi
s fellow students are that they fiaren't that bad. They do their 
143stuff and such.fl He did enjoy the opportunities to work with other students in teams, but did not 
develop relationships with them.  Gianna filos
t contactfl with friends from middle school even 
though they attended the same 9
th grade school.  Though she describes herself as very outgoing, she fididn™t have any interestfl in making friends
. Instead Gianna focused on her school work in 9th grade and did not participate in social activities. As a 
result, neither Gianna nor Marcos expressed any regrets at leaving their peers behind when they changed schools after 9th grade. 
It seems that both Gianna and Marcos have
 found more compatible peers in their new 
10th grade schools; both talked about friends as 
a positive result of the 
change. Still, when interviewed at the end of 10th grade, they talked only of their comfort at returning to a school in their neighborhood where they already had friends. Marcos, in particular, said it was fia pretty happy momentfl when he changed schools because 
he would be in the same school with his 
girlfriend and the fifriends that, you know, I met over in 8
th grade.fl Gianna, too, was happy to switch to a school where fiI already know everybody.fl This contrasts with the stayers, who left old friends behind and made new friends, helping to connect them to their chosen 9
th grade 
school. The makeup of the student body, beyond frie
nds, can also matter in the school match. 
Students described disruptive students and bad at
titudes toward school as something they hoped 
to get away from when they chose a school
. Marisa comments on her perception of her 
neighborhood high school:  I don't think I would be as st
udious as right now. I think I would just be like, wouldn't 
really care about school anymore. Cuz, to be
 honest, that's how mo
st of the students are 
in that school. . . I don't think I would be th
e same. I don't think I would have a future in 
that school. . . . And also the students, how, what their goals are, and they could influence other students.fl 144David echoes Marisa on the possible negative influence of a school dominated by 
students who don™t care about school, though he believes he would be less influenced. His home 
high school is fireally dangerous. . .  A lot of fights, a lot of drug addicts and, uh, it's crazy, really 
crazy. . . . Everybody doesn't even care. Nobody woul
d really care at that school. And, there are usually a lot of dropouts.fl He goes on to say that if he went to that school,  I would be a bit affected, but I mean, like, fo
r me, I want a great education. I want, like, 
to do something in life. So . . . It might affect 
me a little bit, but I mean, I'll still be like 
pay attention and do my work. 

Most of the stayers™ comments about their 
9th grade schools revolve around the teachers and administrators and how much they care 
about and support the students. In negative comments about other schools one focus is the i
ndifference of the teachers and principals.  A second focus of negative school comments is th
e problems caused by disruptive students. Those 
problems range from distracting classroom behavior
 to drug use and fights in the hallways.  As described above, Marisa, the top student at her school, comments that she would be a different student in a school like that because of the 
atmosphere created by i
ndifferent teachers and 
students who don™t care about school. As the students describe their experience with other people in their schools, it is clear that they feel connected with the school when they find helpful, supportive, and caring teachers and administrators, a few friends who share their goals
, attitudes and interests, and other peers who care about school and act accordingly. Key to a positive school experience for the stayers, for the 

leavers this connection is not experienced to the same extent (Gianna) or at all (Marcos).
 Experience of the school and school connection to goals. The students talked about their school choice decision in terms of their goals and 
interests. In addition to an early college high school, the stayers applied to ma
gnet schools that focused on their career interests. In the end 145they decided that earning a two-year degree in addition to a high school diploma would be more 
beneficial in achieving their goals. The opportunity
 to get ahead faster, to save money and time 
in college, and to grow in independence and responsibility in the colleg
e environment appealed 
to all of them.  David, for example, chose an early college school because, fiI graduate with an 
associate™s degree . . . a huge advantage, and I would save my parents a lot of money as well.fl 
ECHS, in particular, has fimore of a college envi
ronmentfl than the other early college school he 
considered. Marisa, too, points to the benefits of figetting my hi
gh school diploma as well as my 
associate™s degreefl in four years and fisav[ing] 
a lot of time and money.fl Samantha talks about 
those same advantages and adds 
that fiit prepares you for the outside world because, right here, it™s like you™re basically an adult.fl Marisa agrees that it fiwill help us when we go off to 
universities where we™re all by ourselves and we™re not gonna have a teacher telling us, do this or do that.fl The stayers have nothing but good things to say about their school. They have found the academic focus and compatible friends and peers th
at they wanted. Though all were uncertain of 
their ability to handle the inde
pendence and the college-level work at young ages, they found 
both to be challenging but manageable, and have 
grown as a result. Though their school does not prepare them for the specific careers they are interested in, all will n
eed a four-year college 
degree to pursue those careers, All are certain that the college 
preparation and experience will better move them toward their 
goals, both short- and long-term. Of the leavers, Marcos applied only to schools focused on his career interest in technology. fiI'm a technology guy,fl he says. fiSo when I hear
d that I'd be able to get access to a 
computer and data, then about 
video gaming programming and such 
. . . I went ahead and chose 146that.fl His main purpose was to filearn more 
about creating my own video game.fl The school 
offered that specialty. 
Gianna™s career interests are less focuse
d so far, but include three possibilitiesŠsonogram technician, teacher and photographerŠnone 
of which were a part of the curriculum of 
her chosen 9th grade school. Though programs related to 
those interests are available at other schools, she did not apply to them until 10
th grade. Gianna has expressed no interest in a career 
in either music or technology, but she applied on
ly to schools that specialize in one of those areas. She and her best friend ap
plied to Tech because fieverything was technology based . . . and only certain students will be accepted into the prog
ram and I would be in a better environment.fl 
Gianna describes Tech as fia cool school to have. They provide laptops, iPads, things of that sort 
to the students. Everything is group project-based.fl When the highly competitive arts school did 
not accept her, she enrolled at Tech. 
Marcos and Gianna both found that the schools they chose were not what they promised 
to be. There was less use of technology at the business and management school than Marcos 
expected and, though the school offered courses matching his career plans in video game 
development, that was fifor 10
th grade.fl Technology classes in 9th grade focused on basic skills. fiIn the meantime, I had to do some stuff on the word processor [and] EXCEL,fl For the most 

part, he found the classes traditional and fibori
ng.fl Though he knew that the school did not meet 
his needs, he still planned to stay there for 10th grade. At the beginning of that year, however, he was fikicked outfl he says, for missing the bus an
d the first day of school. He offers no other explanation. He returned to his home high school where he says he is happier. Though he is not 
in a technology program, in the larger school he has found many more peers who share his 
particular technology interests. At the same time, his grades 
have dropped because he fipretty 147much slacked off.fl He plans to apply to the t
echnology program at his cu
rrent school, but as of the end of the school year he had not yet done so. Gianna was similarly disappointed that th
ere was less technology and group work than expected as well as by the school™s outdated equipment. fiIt just wasn
™t all it was said to be.fl She continues, fiWe had technology every now and then, but if you saw the laptops . . . they were dinosaurs.fl Gianna liked the teachers but was not happy. She says, fiAt the end I really didn™t likefl the school. One teacher encouraged her to follow her interests and apply to the photography program at the high school near her home. Photogr
aphy, she says, fiwas just like second nature to me . . . and it would really give me the motivatio
n that I need to go there and just ride through.fl She has friends there and says that the school is her fisecond home 
away from home.fl  
While the connection between the school and the student™s goals is prominent, in this 
large, urban school district a sense of safety also affects a student™s school experience and the connection that supports staying. Feeling safe at school was raised by three of the interviewed studentsŠGianna, Samantha, and David. Gianna, a 
leaver, was most concerned about safety and 
did not feel entirely safe in her 9th grade school. In describing her school, Gianna volunteers that a student should fiJust be careful when you walk out, off campus.fl Because of the neighborhood 

it is in she did not feel safe at Tech, her 9th grade school. When asked how much that bothered 
her, she said,  It doesn't bother me a lot, but it bothers me
 enough to know like, my surroundings, like to 
have security, like what we had are security guards around, and police officers and . . . to have a close eye on them and note where the officers are.  
About HHS, her 10th grade school, Gianna says, fiI feel a lit
tle bit more safe because there's more 
police officers, there's police officers, there's 
Dallas ISD officers, and there's many, many, um, 
metal detectors at almost every door.fl  
148Samantha, a stayer, has similar safety con
cerns, admitting that before she arrived at 
ECHS she was fipretty scaredfl of being on a coll
ege campus and in that location but feels safe 
now that she is there. Comparing her neighborhood high school to her current school, she says,  [The neighborhood high school] has had really bad things, and here [ECHS] it's like they 
have . . . police around in every door and they check if you have your ID on you. Over there they don't really do that. They've had pe
ople come in with guns and all that. It's not 
really safe. But over here they're strict. 

David, a stayer, has difficulty finding somethi
ng to say when asked to describe the worst 
things about his school. Finally he volunteers that
 fiit™s kind of a bit more dangerousfl because of 
its location. But when asked he feels like it is more dangerous he
 replies, fiNot really.fl His neighborhood high school however, is dangerous, with fia lot of fights, a lot of drug addicts and, uh, it™s crazy, really crazy.fl Neither Marisa nor Marcos mentions
 school safety at all. Though she lived until recently in a neighborhood where fiat night all you would hear was sirens and 
gunshots and you would wake up and there would be blood on your porch,fl the only thing that fiscaredfl Marisa about ECHS was th
at, fiI didn™t know if I was going to be able to handle [the challenging work].fl   Safety concerns seem to be a matter of cour
se for Gianna and Samantha because of the 
neighborhoods where they live and go to school. Police and security officers in the schools and, for Gianna, metal detectors are indications of sa
fety. Though the other students appear much less 
concerned, most of the interviewed students cited safety concerns as one motivator for choosing not to attend their assigned neighborhood high schools. Only Gianna felt less safe in her chosen school; and she felt safer when she moved to the neighborhood school. For these students, this aspect of the school experience motivates choice but
 is not a primary factor
 in persistence in the chosen school. 149All five students attended specialty schools in 9th grade that had limited extracurricular 
activities in comparison to their comprehensiv
e neighborhood high schools. The three stayers all participated in extracurricular activities in the 9
th grade, though not always those they had enjoyed before; two of them f
ound new opportunities. Though not a primary motivating factor in 
leaving their 9th grade schools, both leavers commented on 
the lack of activities there and the greater extracurricular opportunities at the school they chose for 10
th gradeŠa large, 
comprehensive neighborhood high school with
 numerous specialized programs.  
Marisa felt that the trade-off between ex
tracurricular activities and academics was 
worthwhile. She had been heavily involved in sports in middle school, observing that, 
I was really into sport, like I could really play anything. You show me how to do it and I 
work hard in it and I was always good at sports. I love softball, soccer. I even played basketball. Anything really. Because her early college high school does not provide
 sports, she made the choice to give them 
up, saying, fiThe sports could give me a scholarsh
ip, but I think that, you know, a scholarship for your work is, is better than for playing sports.fl Samantha is a soccer player but was not conc
erned about the lack of sports at ECHS. Because she participates in a league that is outsid
e of the school district, she is able to continue 
that sport. She has no other activities that might
 be affected. David™s interests are in the area 
where his school provides opportunitiesŠcommun
ity serviceŠand his other activities are outside of school. Both keep him very busy and th
e lack of other extracurricular offerings does not bother him. As with school safety, Gianna is the student most affected by the availability of 
extracurricular opportunities. She plays the cello
 and applied to the highly competitive arts 
magnet school but was not accepted. Of her 9
th grade school, Gianna says, fiThey didn™t have 150sports, band, orchestra. That disappointed me a lot 
. . . cuz [sic] I played the cello as soon as I got into middle school and I had to quit because they 
didn™t have it.fl  One of the best things about 
her 10th grade school, she says, is fithe extra-curricular activities that they have up there that they didn™t have at [Tech]. Like there™s lots of things up there.fl Gianna is on the track team at HHS, something not available at Tech. The school also 
has an orchestra but she has been unable to participate because, fiThey couldn™t fit it into
 my schedule.fl She hopes she will be able to 
schedule it the next year. 
 According to Marcos, his 9
th grade school had sports opportunities, but little else. The one activity he joined was the animé club, wh
ich he attended fievery single time,fl but he 
complains that finot many people did that.fl He 
is much happier with the animé club at HHS 
because, fiThere were a lot of people who went th
ere. The classroom was full. Not like at the 
other one where just [sic], like only nine people.fl  
The existence or lack of extracurricular opportunities was a concern for all of the students in choosing or persisting in their 9th grade school. Of the stayers, 
only Marisa had to give up an activity, but she felt the tradeoff was worth it. Both leavers talked about the lack of opportunities at their 9th grade school and were happy with more opportunities in 10
th grade. At the same time, 
this was not a primary motivating factor in th
eir move. For both, though, it contributed to their overall dissatisfaction with the school and made
 the move to the new school more positive.  
Late in the spring of their 10th grade year, it seems likely th
at Gianna has found her place and will be a stayer in the future. Marcos, on th
e other hand, is still struggling. He may stay in 
his regular high school program or he may follow hi
s past tendencies and apply to another school or program. But he now has academic problems that may preclude further change. Through two 

years in the same school, the three stayers have
 found their place in a school with supportive 
151staff and compatible peers that also matches their 
interests and goals. All expect to graduate from 
that school. Self-efficacy: fiI believe I can do it.fl  As used here, the concepts of self-efficacy and 
agency are related but are manifested differe
ntly. Self-efficacy is generally passive, an expression of traits and attitudes, while agency is active, based on 
actions and behaviors. It is one thing to believe one can do something and quite 
another to actually do it. The difference is meaningful in comparing results for these students.  
The stayers are clear and positive in expres
sing both messagesŠthat they can do it and 
they are doing it. One leaver, Gianna, also positively expresses both, but with less clarity and 
certainty, while Marcos is hesitant about self-e
fficacy and quite uncertain about his own agency. 
Their level of self-efficacy, including their strengths and weaknesses, is evident in the way they 
view themselves and th
e goals they express. Strengths, weaknesses, student identity. 
The students™ descriptions of their strengths and weaknesses and how they see themselves as stude
nts are consistent with their other comments and actions. The stayers consistently describe th
emselves in positive terms. They are dedicated, 
hard-working, responsible, respectful, and never quit. Though they might have some doubts 
about facing a new challenge, overall they do not let those doubts stand in the way of tackling the challenge. Ultimately, they do not accept the po
ssibility that their hard work may not be 
enough to accomplish any goal they set. Thei
r acknowledged weaknesses are minimalŠbeing 
easily distracted (Samantha and David) and pani
cking far ahead of time over the deadline for a 
project (Marisa). In other words, each 
has a very high sense of self-efficacy.  
Marisa describes herself as a worker: fiLike a
ll I do is just work, work, work.fl  She is a fivery committed student [and] always tr[ies] to be the best, become the best.fl Her confidence 
developed during her elemen
tary school years and by 8th grade, when she had to make a 9
th grade 152school choice, she says, fiI was really confident with myself, and I 
know I can go, with my 
education I can go really big with it. I've al
ways been like that.fl Though she wanted to fido college and high school at the same timefl since 6
th grade, Marisa was not without her doubts about the challenge but had the confidence to try it. fiI was really
 scared. I didn't know if I was 
going to be able to handle it. . . . But I was just like, well, might as well just try it and if I like it 
I™ll stay.fl David had similar doubts but even believing that it fiwas going to be really hardfl he fijust wanted to try.fl When asked whether he worr
ied that he might not succeed, he says, fiat first, 
yeah. Like, I'm doing college work at the same time, I mean, I'm like 14 years
 old doing college 
work. I mean that's, that's a challenge right there.
fl Like the others, Samantha was fipretty scaredfl because 
fiI was going to be on a college campus and it wasn™t 
going to be the same, like regular [district schools].fl 
She describes herself as 
firesponsible, organized, mature . . . i
ndependent.fl She also says, fiI work hard for what I want [and] if I™m going for so
mething, I™m going to achieve it and I™m going to 
accomplish it.fl  
 Though Marisa, David and Samantha all had concerns
 that they might not be able to meet the 
challenge, those fears did not keep them from movi
ng toward their goals. They had the confidenceŠthe 
self-efficacyŠto still believe that they could do 
it and to try. David articulates his attitude: 
I'm really dedicated to whatever I do. . . . I mean, I try my best. If I know I cannot do it, at least I 
will try. It's better trying than not trying. Cu
z [sic] you might have a chance but, I mean, that 
chance can really help you, can really push you 
up. And I've tried taking a chance instead of not 
taking a chance. And I try to get ahead of myself,
 so I can . . . challenge myself to do things. 
All three found that they not only could succeed in 
their chosen school but could also thrive and 
grow with the challenge. The experience boosted th
eir confidence in their ability to meet future 
challenges. The leavers identify fewer strengths and one, Marcos, identifies more weaknesses. Both 
have more doubts about their ability to follow 
their plans, seeing deviations as realistic 
153possibilities.  Like the stayers, Gianna also describes herself as hard-working but also as friendly and helpful. She does what she has to do. The only weakness she identifies is that she is easily distracted. Like the stayers, she believes that he
r hard work will overcome obstacles to achieve 
her goals, but she expresses more uncertainty: fi
I™m going to do a lot of studying for the ACT and 
SAT. . . . Hopefully I™ll get a good grade so I™m 
gonna [sic] send out my scores to the colleges I 
would like to go to. Hopefully I™ll get accepted and I can start.fl 
Marcos sees himself very differently. He 
identifies his strengths as teamwork and technology. His weaknesses are paying attention to lectures and staying on track when he is doing something. He describes himsel
f as sleepy in class, which, he says, is not his fault. Marcos gets stressed by his school work, saying of his 10th grade work: fiI pretty much got frustrated with the work. . . . But having four classes a day plus getting homework in
 each of those classes, 
it . . . kinda stressed me out. When I get discour
aged I just can™t do the work.fl Marcos clearly has a rather low sense of self-efficacy.  Goals. As described above, all of the interviewed students have similar goalsŠto 
graduate from high school, graduate from colle
ge, and get a good jobŠthe commonly accepted path to success in the United States. Marisa e
xpresses it clearly, saying she wants to: figraduate with an associate's in science and my high school
 diploma. Then after th
at I go to a four-year university, um, and try to major 
in biochemistry.fl David™s goals are similar and also include 
graduating with a 4.0 grade point average and trying to get scholarships. He plans to major in 
engineering. Samantha, too, want
s to figet an associate™s degree, do well in . . . high school classes as well as college classesfl
 then try to get into Baylor University, go on to medical school 
and become a pediatrician. All th
ree stayers are confident that they will achieve those goals. 
Paying for college does not come up except in re
ference to getting scholarships. For David one advantage of the early college program is th
at it will save his parents a lot of money.  
154The leavers are somewhat different. Gianna be
lieves that she will graduate from college 
and is working to figraduate in the top 10% of my class. I know it™s gonna [sic] take some real 
hard work, but I™m trying my best.fl As noted 
above, she does say, though, that she will have to go in and out of college because it™s so expens
ive. When asked about her career goals, Gianna 
first says that she wants to be a sonogram technician and has re
searched the requirements. But 
then she is not sure of her college major, 
saying, fiI go back and forth from the sonogram 
technician to, um, photographer 
and teacher. Um, I don™t know.fl 
Marcos plans to go to college and wants to be an independent video game developer. He 
is not, however, clear on his path to those goals or whether he will be able to achieve them. He is 

even more worried about paying for college than 
the others, saying fiI would graduate from high 
school. . . . I will get a [scholarship] to a univers
ity, then go to the university. If I don't, then I 
have to save up money to go to the university.fl He
 also expects that he will have to interrupt his 
studies to earn money in
 order to continue.  Again, the stayers have a high level of self-efficacy. They absolutely believe they will achieve their goals while the leavers are less ce
rtain. Their concerns are more financial than about their ability to do what they need to do. Given his current academic problems, Marcos will 
have to work hard to graduate from high school
, much less go to college. His expressed self-efficacy may be relatively high but whether he 
can match that with action is uncertain.  
   155Section 4: Interview Themes and the Developmental Assets Framework
 To analyze the interview data in relation to 
prior theory, I first organized the data around factors in positive youth development theory as
 expressed through the 40 developmental assets 
framework. Overall, the better fit was with the five
 contexts in which students live and within which their developmental assets 
operate rather than with specif
ic assets or asset categories. 
Thus, instead of organizing the themes around the tw
o main topics, as in the inductive analysis, I 
organized those themes around the asset contexts. Most
 of the themes from th
e data fit more than one context, reflecting the interactions among the different areas of a student™s life. Table 23 
shows the developmental asset contexts and the themes related to them. 
  Confirming their low DAP scores in the commun
ity context (from 8 to 18 out of 30), the 
interview data indicate that the larger community is
 not of particular relevance to these students. Also consistent are the quantitative analysis results indicating that the 
community context is not significantly related to either choice or persistence. All of these young people live in relative isolation from their communities, both the neig
hborhood and the larger community. They rely on 
Table23.Relationship
Between
DevelopmentalAsset
Contextsand
InterviewThemes
ContextsThemesFamilyPersonalSocialSchoolCommunityFamilyexperience
X
SenseofagencyXXXXSelfEfficacy
X
Schoolexperience
XXXNote
.Themesarefactors
derived
frominterview
data.Contexts
arefactors
fromthedevelopmental
assetsframeworkofpositiveyouth
development.
156family and maybe a few close family friends. Some
 of the students are reaching out to serve the community, but that happens primarily through sc
hool and is not a notewor
thy factor for most. 
With insufficient interview data to support connec
tions with the themes, I 
do not further consider the community context.
 Figure 5 shows the relationship of the four themes to the two main topics from the 
interviews (as detailed in Table 23, above) and separately shows the relationship of the themes to 
the four relevant developmental asset contexts (not including
 the community context). All four 
themes fit reasonably well into the four asset contexts.  
Two themesŠsense of agency and school e
xperienceŠare connected to more than one context. A student™s sense of agency operates across all of the contexts. Self-efficacy is related to 
agency, but here it is directly connected only to the personal context. In other contexts it becomes agency, the active manifestation of self-efficacy.  
The school experience theme is broader than 
the school context, encompassing the entire 
school experience rather than just the setting (the context) presented by the school.  It calls upon and interacts with three developmental asset 
contextsŠpersonal, social, and school. The school experience theme does not, however, interact to 
any great extent with the family context for 
these students. They seem to inhabit two different worlds in family and school. This might be 
different for students from families with more personal resources, but in this high-poverty urban 

school district where family res
ources are low, their experience is likely applicable to many other 
students.                                                                                                                                                      157Figure5.Themes
inStudents™Perceptions
ofKeyInfluences
inSchoolChoiceandPersistence:Interview
ThemesandPriorTheory                          SCHOOLMATCHFAMILYSchoolAgencyFamilySelfefficacyInterview
TopicsandThemesPriortheory:Develo
pmentalassetcontextsandthethemes158Family. The interview results confirm the importance of the family that is predicted by 
PYD theory. Family is so important to these stud
ents that it is one of two main topics around 
which their responses are organized. Family cont
ext scores of the interviewed students are the highest or near highest of all of their DAP scores. The same is tr
ue for the larger population with DAP scores, where the mean family context scor
e is the highest of all and nearly two points higher than the next highest score. (See Table 20, above.)  
The quantitative analysis indicates that the 
family context has a si
gnificant relationship with both school choice and persistence, but the 
direction is negative for choice and positive for 
persistence. Theory expects that with high family context sc
ores, the family should be a positive 
influence on desirable outcomes. The obvious ques
tion might then be whether theory is wrong or 
school choice is not a desirable outcome. Almost certainly the an
swer is more complicated. The 
interviews suggest that choice is valuable as a mechanism for improving the match between 
student and school. Whether it is
 a desirable outcome depends on the circumstances for each 
student. It is possible that a 
minority of students will find a be
tter match through active choice, 
which might explain the negative results. If so, th
en the result of the negative influence of the family on choice is much like its positive influenc
e on persistence, making the family a force for 
stability rather than change. For, Marisa, David, Samantha, and maybe ultimately for Gianna, it 
appears that choice is desirable. For 
Marcos, it is a more
 difficult question.  
If anything is missing from the family contex
t in the developmental assets framework, it 
is the student™s sense of agency. One strength of at least some of the interviewed students is their 
proactive involvement within the family as well 
as outside. They are not just passive receivers but active participants who affect the family at 
the same time it affects them. Most seek and use 
the help available from family, including extend
ed family members, and offer help in return. 
Some take on responsibility to help other family members. Future plans include giving back to 
159the family with financial or personal support. It ma
y be that this strength develops as students get older and grow in their ability to help and in awareness of that ab
ility. The individual assets that make up the family context are externalŠsomet
hing provided to the student by othersŠwhile agency is essentially internal. The other contexts include internal assets, recognizing that young people are a part of the contexts in their lives. Proactive participation in family functions and 
relationships may be an important strengt
h to consider, at least for older youth. School.  The quantitative analysis shows that the school context is not significantly related to either choice or persistence, yet the 
interview results indicate the importance of the 
school experience in both. Though they are among the 
school elements important to the students, 
the assets that make up the school context appa
rently do not capture the key student strengths operating in choice and persistence. The school experience theme includes 
the school context but is more expansive, adding factors that mo
re directly affect the student-school match. 
The interviews indicate that re
lationships with adults and peers are central to a student™s 
finding his or her place in a particular school. Th
ough not among the assets in the school context, 
relationships are included in the personal context, which is significantly and positively related to 

school choice but not significant for persistence. The social comp
etencies category also includes relationships and is significantly and positively re
lated to persistence, but not to choice. These 
differences suggest that the way they are combin
ed may obscure assessment of effects that might 
be evident in an analysis 
with individual assets.   
Other elements of the themes that are impor
tant for school match are included among the 
developmental assets but distributed among all 
of the contexts. They also are found in the internal categories, primarily the positive values and social competencies categories. Because 

they are not measured separately, it is not po
ssible to make comparisons to theory of such 
160elements as taking responsibility, establishing 
relationships, seeking and giving help, or the match of student identity w
ith the school experience.    161Section 5: Summary of Qualitative Results
  The qualitative results overall support the importa
nce of developmental 
assets in positive outcomes for young people. They also point to sp
ecific asset contexts or categories that are applicable to the outcome va
riables in this study.   
While the number of students interviewed is small, the similarities and differences in 
their responses nonetheless provide useful information. Though these students may not be 
statistically representative of the population of students, the sample does include a variety of 
demographic characteristicsŠgender, race/ethni
city, limited English and special education 
designations, economic disadvantage, parents in 
the home, and immigrant parentsŠthat are not 
uncommon among students in large urban school distri
cts, especially in the southwestern United States.  The themes derived from the interviews relate closely to factors identified in positive 
youth development theory and to the 40 developm
ental assets framework. Differences are more 
in emphasis on factors, particular
ly those directly related to the outcome variables in this studyŠ
school choice and persistence. The conceptualization of school match, for example, brings out 
the importance of relationships in 
school in a way that the developmental assets school context is not designed to do. Similarly, the interviewed st
udents™ active seeking out, accessing and using 
of help is a more dynamic concept than is the mere availability of help in the developmental 
assets.  The primary difference between the themes fr
om the interviews a
nd most aspects of 
current theory is, perhaps, not so much a differe
nce in substance as in degree. Current theory 
recognizes that young people influence their own development through a dynamic interaction 
with the contexts of their lives (Benson et al., 2006, p. 895). This is evident in the interview data 162for this study. What is striking, however, is the 
proactive mindset of mo
st of the interviewed 
students. All of them make an effort, to differi
ng degrees, to control what happens to them at 
home and at school. But the most successful stud
ents are focused and decisively active in 
developing their own assets and influencing the contexts of their lives. They are becoming, in a 
sense, their own developmental assets as they
 mature and become more aware of their own 
growing abilities. Others are feeling less able to control their lives. These differences among the 
students appear to be based in a combinat
ion of the individualŠpersonality, strengths, weaknessesŠand his or her experience, exactly the interactive feedback loop that Bronfenbrenner (Bronfenbrenner, 2005a) laid out in his bioecological theory of human 
development. 
   163Chapter Six: Discussion  Both the quantitative and qualitative results support the hypotheses that (1) active choosers have higher developmental asset leve
ls than passive choosers and (2) students™ persistence in actively chosen schools is a positive function of their developmental assets. This is 
consistent with the research literature, which 
consistently shows positive relationships between 
developmental factors and desirable outcomes 
for young people, including grade point average and others related to school. This work adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that developmental factors influence school success. 
But there is more to the results. Looking only 
at statistical tests of overall asset levels 
obscures the more interesting a
nd puzzling results for asset categories and contexts. Testing different combinations of assetsŠthe categories and contextsŠin relation to two separate but related outcomesŠschool choice and persiste
nceŠreveals noteworthy if not surprising differences. In reporting the results, I have suggested possible reasons for these differences, but they are not likely the only ones. Evidence in this
 research raises some disparate, but related 
questions for further inquiry. One is certainly the 
different effects of individual assets or small 
combinations of assets on different outcomes. A 
second is the role of the family in a child™s 
development, especially thos
e living in poverty with minima
l resources whose ability to 
fiproperlyfl care for their children is frequently challenged. Third is the relationship between DA and GPA, which has implications 
for finding effective means to e
ducate all of our children to high levels. Finally are some implications for 
policy and practice, considering the question: Given that schools can™t do everything, what can they do to help disadvantaged students succeed in school and thrive in life?  164The Role of Specific Developmental Factors in Different Outcomes.   Though a substantial body of evidence shows that overall higher levels of developmental 
factors are positively related to a variety of pos
itive youth outcomes, there is much less evidence 
on the influence of individual factors or combinations of factor
s on desired outcomes. This study 
shows that the component developmental assets can 
have a very different influence on particular outcomes than the aggregate assets or other 
components. Those different results include 
differences in statistical significance, magnit
ude, and even the directionŠpositive or negativeŠ
of the relationship. In addition, the same component can have 
different relationships with different outcomes.  
Here the difference in results between choi
ce and persistence stands out. The external 
asset categories are significant influences for choice but not for persistence, while persistence is 

significantly related to some internal categorie
s and choice is not. There also are many more 
categories and contexts that are si
gnificantly related to choice than to persistence. That is true 
even though the choice results are much more sens
itive to inclusion of acad
emic variables in the 
model. These differences between choice and persistence indicate that specific assets may act 
differently for different outcomes.  
Because the DAP does not measure individual as
sets, it can only give us clues as to 
specific assets that matter in a particular case. 
Researchers are beginning to look more closely at 
specific developmental factors and outcomes 
(e.g. Farrington et al., 2012). Identifying the specific factors that most influence a desired outc
ome will help to create targeted interventions 
that should be more effective. At the same ti
me, though, we should be careful that we do not lose 
sight of the entire developmen
tal context that underlies all 
human development. Focusing too 
much on only a few factors could be detrimental to overall development.  
165None of this is entirely surprising, but clearly indicates that there is a great deal more to 
be learned through further research on individual and combined developmental factors and 
particular desirable outcomes. The ultimate practical goal of this kind of research would be to 

more effectively target asset-building interventi
ons toward a particular outcome. At the same 
time, it would seem unwise to abandon overall 
asset-building efforts and risk impairing the 
complex connections and interactions between
 the person and the contextŠpeople, place, 
experienceŠthat, according to human development theory, underlie human development.
22  Prior research shows no one set or combination of factors or settings that is universally best. Because of the complexity of the human 
experience, with multiple interactions in the 
biofeedback loop, each individual ha
s a unique set of experiences and unique development. With 
the large number of strengths identified by various researchers 
and organizations for various settings and outcomes, identifying the fibestfl or 
most important strengths seems an exercise in 
futility.  
In this study there are significant relationshi
ps between a number of asset types and the measured outcomes, but there is also an appr
eciable amount of covariance. This could be 
considered a problem of definition of the asset 
types. But it may be better recognized as an 
accurate reflection of the feedback loop of in
teractions among experience and context in the 
development of every human being. Rather than be
ing a problem of too much covariance, it may 
be a positive reflection of the variety of paths to influence a particular desired outcome. It would then be the basis of resilienceŠwhere the abse
nce of one or more developmental strengths 
(internal or external) is not necessarily determin
ative because there are ot
hers that can fill the 
                                                 22In the introduction to a review of over 800 studies on developmental assets (Scales & Leffert, 2004), Peter Scales 
expresses this same caution: fiYoung people live in comple
xly connected, multilayered environments of self, family, 
school, community, and peers. Attempts to reduce developm
ental cause and effect within such a system to a few 
‚most important™ linear relationships are bound to miss the ecological whole that is more than the sum of its partsfl 
(p. xvi).    
166gaps and compensate for what is missing. Though th
e gaps won™t be filled perfectly, they can be compensated for well enough to support positive 
outcomes, even for those young people who are 
deemed most at-risk of school fa
ilure. In this light, the fihigher the overall level of assets the betterfl makes perfect sense. 
The Role of the Family in Youth Development.
  Strengthening the family has been at the core of positive youth development theory since 
its inception. Both the quantitative and qualitative findings in this study support the importance of the family in providing crucial supportive f
actors that help young people succeed and develop into thriving adults. Despite the fact that bo
th personal and material family resources differ 
among the interviewed students, their family cont
ext scores are among thei
r highest DAP scores, all in the excellent and good ranges for both stayers and leavers. Scores in the larger sample are 
similarly clustered at the high end 
of possible scores. It seems that
 students™ perception of their relationships with their families includes someth
ing beyond an objective evaluation of resources.  
Considering the pervasive negative political rhetoric about the problems of families in 
poverty, particularly the failings of parents, the high DAP scores for the family context in 
relation to other scores might seem implausible. The interview da
ta, however, make it clear that 
the high scores are not inappropriate, that they do reflect re
ality. The unequivocal messages of 
support and encouragement they receive from
 their parents gives these young people the confidence to tackle the obstacles in their lives and to believe they will conquer Developmental Factors and GPA.  The relationship between DA and GPA is an important result that bears further consideration.  Adding the academic variables to 
the choice and persistence models changes the 
DAP score results, generally decreasing the magn
itude and often causing a loss of significance. One reasonable conclusion is that GPA, not DA, is really the motivating force. However, the 
167analysis of the relationship between DA and 9th grade GPA while controlling for 8th grade GPA 
shows a significant positive effect of DA, independent of prior GPA.    It is tempting to end the analysis here, with 
the identification of the independent effects of DA and prior GPA on later GPA. But the effects of DA are almost certainly much stronger than 
this simple dichotomy. The direct and independent
 effect of DA is fundamentally important but 
it is not the only effect. DA also act through GPA. Given the direct effects of DA on 9th grade GPA, there is no reason to believe that DA do not have a similar effect 
on prior years™ GPA as well. While DA are attributes of the student, GPA is
 not. It is a measure of a collection of student 
factorsŠattitudes and behaviorsŠthat affect sch
ool success. It is more than reasonable to 
believe that developmental assets
 are some of those factors.  
The concept of the continuous feedback loop between person and context helps to think differently about the DA and GPA relationship. In a student™s life DA precede GPA. They are 
part of the attitudes and behaviors a child brings
 to school. GPA measures the results of those 
attitudes and behaviors over time and interacts 
with them, affecting the student™s attitudes and 
motivation. Over time, each changes the other.
 A student who earns a high GPA will almost 
certainly feel good about his or her efforts and capabilities and feel motivat
ed and able to do it againŠan experience which enhances developmental 
assets, which then leads to a high GPA in 
the future. In this sense the effects of prior GP
A on future GPA are really, at least partially, due to DA. In a sense, DA have become embedded in prior GPA and continue to act through it. Thus, 

the reduction, and sometimes elimination, of the 
influence of the developmental assets when 
academic variables are added to the choice and pe
rsistence models does not necessarily indicate 
that GPA, not DA, is what matters. It might be 
most productive to focus efforts to improve GPA 
on increasing relevant developmental factors. 
 168Implications for Policy and Pr
actice: What can Schools Do?  There is an ongoing debate in education policy about whether schools can do enough for all children to succeed in school and in life. Yout
h development research tells us that in many 
cases the other contexts of children™s lives can undermine school efforts. But that does not mean 
that schools can™t do anything. Rather than answering fiyes they canfl or fino they can™tfl to the current debate, it is more useful to consider
 what schools can do and how they can do it. The results of the interview data analysis indicate th
at schools do have an important influence. The 
research literature tells us that the ideal is for the entire communityŠfamily, school, 
neighborhood, church, civic organizationsŠto come together to
 support the development of 
young people. But it is difficult for policymakers to
 influence this community effort in any 
meaningful way. 
Because schools are a significant context in
 virtually all children™s lives, because 
attendance is mandatory, and because policymakers at all levels can influence what happens 
there, schools offer perhaps the best opportuni
ty to positively impact the development of young 
people. That is why, through history, we in the United States have looked to our schools to fix our social and economic problems. Because schools are but one context in the complex world 

our children inhabit, we have asked too much of them and have 
been disappointed. As a result, much of today™s education reform debate fo
cuses on how much schools, and teachers, can do 
given the other major influences in children™
s lives over which schools have no control. One common example is that school success tends to 
track family circumstances, primarily economic 
status.  Though schools alone cannot do everything, they certainly can do more than nothing, and 
likely something significant. But doing just anyt
hing in the face of urgent needs is not the 
answer. Positive youth development theory gives 
us hope that schools can make a difference if 
169they focus on a broad range of developmental 
factors and work with the other influential 
contexts in students™ lives. The results of this study indicate some areas where efforts by schools, 
with the help of policy makers, can make a positive difference. Two of those are discussed 

below.  The first is to recognize the importance 
of in-school relationships to school success and 
enhance opportunities and support for those relationships. Second is to intervene in the bioecological feedback loop in ways that enhance development.  
Recognize the importance of relationships. 
The positive impact of in-school relationships is evident in both the quantitative a
nd qualitative results. Particularly striking is the contribution of a student™s relationship with the school to academic performance as measured by 
GPA. The relationships that the more successful 
of the interviewed students formed with school 
staffŠadministrators and teachersŠand other st
udents were a key factor in their success. 
Though all have what they feel to be strong and crucial family support, that support is limited by 
resources, including levels of education and experience. Even when parents and other family 
members can support, encourage, and even inspir
e, they often do not have the knowledge, or the resources to obtain that knowledge, to help their children navigate the education world. Students without adequate family supports, with greater 
obstacles in their lives, or both can easily flounder and fail.  Schools can create a safe a
nd caring culture that encour
ages positive relationships 
between students and school staff as well as between students. As evidenced by the interview data, those relationships help students engage with school, help them over obstacles, and build 
the confidence to work for success. The more 
successful interviewed students attend a school 
with a culture that helps them to effectively e
ngage with a resource that is available in all 
schoolsŠindividual people. This kind of culture is particularly rare in poor, urban schools where 170resources are scarce, student and staff turnover is high, and student needs are great, including the need for supportive and caring adult relationships.  Current education policy does not, however, appropriately value the importance of 
relationships to student success. Policies do not just benignly ignore in-school relationships; in many cases they actively disrupt them. Existi
ng school choice, school improvement (or school 
turnaround) and school and teacher accountabil
ity policies put schools and teachers in 
competition with each other for survival. The ul
timate penalty for failure under any of these 
policies, school closure, falls most heavily on th
e students in poor, urban school districts, those who are least likely to have supports outside of school. The same is
 true of the lesser penalties, where principals or teachers, or both, are re
moved and replaced. Even when schools avoid the 
legal sanctions, the intense competition and fear
 of penalties often lead to higher turnover in 
schools on the edge of failure. A trusted teacher 
or principal could disappear, sometimes on short 
notice and sometimes to be replaced by a series of
 short-term substitute
s (see, e.g. Zaniewski, 
2015). Not only do these events disrupt relationships but they disrupt school culture as well. None of this provides the supports necessary
 for positive, healthy youth development.  
School choice policy in particular has impacts beyond school closure and high staff turnover. First, even where students change schoo
ls voluntarily, relationships are disrupted when familiar school staff and friends are left behi
nd. Some students change schools frequently, not 
always voluntarily, making it particularly difficu
lt for them to form and sustain supportive 
relationships. Second, in policy goals, competition 
for students is supposed to incentivize schools 
to improve in both academic performance and in 
targeting programs toward individual student 
needs and interests. Whether or not this occu
rs, the marketing that is a consequence of 
competition focuses on tangible things that are easy
 to see and appeal to students and parents. 
171The more important school culture is not visi
ble and marketing may 
mislead students when 
reality doesn™t match their expectat
ions based on marketing claims.  
None of the five students interviewed for this study knew the culture of the schools they considered for 9th grade. They made their decision
s based on information put out by the 
schoolsŠmarketing claims. For Gianna, the exp
ectations she picked up from the school™s 
information did not match reality. She was unhappy with
 that reality but also with the culture in the school. Marcos had a similar 
experience. Both of them change
d schools after that year. The other three students, Marisa, David, and Samantha, also relied on information put out by the 
school. They expected to find a challenging and accel
erated program and a better school culture 
than in their neighborhood schools. But they did 
not know what it would be like any more than Gianna and Marcos knew about their schools. The 
school did meet their e
xpectations and they found a very supportive and caring culture, but it could easily have been otherwise.  When they focus on school reform at the leve
l of the district or school, policymakers can 
fail to recognize the potentially negative consequences for students. Closing schools and disrupting school-related relationships can diminish, even destr
oy, a student™s connection to and engagement with the school. Setting schools in vi
rtually unregulated competition with each other can easily leave students without 
the necessary information and 
understanding to choose a school 
that meets their needs. This too can interfer
e with forming supportive relationships and to 
another school change. Policymakers would do we
ll to consider the developmental needs of 
students and, at a minimum, adopt policies th
at recognize the importance of supportive school-
related relationships and incentivize the stability and culture 
that promote them. The comments 
of the students in this study describe what the result could look like.  172Intervene in the process of development.
23  Schools can intervene in the developmental 
processŠthe bioecological feedback loopŠin direct and indirect ways.  Developmental factors, 
including those in the developmental assets fr
amework, can help schools focus on enhancing key 
factors that lead to improved school performance 
and success despite the ob
stacles children face. 
Research shows that these devel
opmental strengths can be purposel
y increased and that increase 
is related to improved school success (Lerner, Le
rner, et al., 2009). Interventions that enhance 
developmental factors (a key tenet of positive youth development theory) are a promising 

approach to improving student performance and u
ltimate school success. As they interact with 
other experiences and contexts over the long term, effective interventions in the bioecological feedback loop will have consequences far beyond the immediate effects.  
There are numerous points to intervene in 
the feedback loop. Current education reform policies generally intervene at the point closest to the ultimate goalŠgenerally GPA, 

standardized test scores, and graduation ratesŠbut this may not be the most effective point. The 
results of this study and prior research indicate that a great many factors influence GPA. The 
same is true for school choice and persistence.
 A reasonable conclusion is that, rather than focusing on ultimate outcome-level interventions (the symptoms), a shift of focus to the factors 

that more broadly influence those outcomes (the
 cause) will likely be more effective for more 
students. Over the long term, by using positive interventionsŠenhancing youth developmentŠat 

an earlier point in the feedback loop, the likelihood of long-term change improves as other aspects of a student™s development are affected over time.  
One such approach is described by Benson and colleagues (2006) who suggest three 
major points of potential intervention. First is im
proving contexts of children™s lives to increase 
their ficapacity to nurture, support, and constructi
vely challenge the developing personfl (p. 910). 
                                                 23  A more detailed discussion of the points in this sectio
n is in Chapter Two: Review of the Literature, Section 3. 
173In other words, schools can strive to create a culture of the sort perceived as important to the 
three stayers in this study. It is safe to say that each of them felt nurtured, supported, and 
constructively challenged at ECHS and gave that experience much credit for their school 
success.  
The second recommended intervention point
 is to fienhance[e] the skills and 
competencies of youth . . . to further enable th
eir ‚natural™ capacity to engage with, connect, change, and learn from their social contextsfl (B
enson et al., 2006, p. 910). This includes the role of schools as purveyors of academic skills and kn
owledge, but goes beyond that to include, for 
example, the kinds of non-cognitive skills evidenced
 by the sense of agency and self-efficacy of 
the students interviewed for this study.  
The third  point of intervention in the feedback loop is in fiproviding opportunities for, and encouraging, student involvement in and 
contribution to the school and the larger communityfl (Benson et al., 2006, p. 910). This asp
ect of the positive youth development model 
may have the most powerful implications for succe
ss, not only in school but in adult life as well. It fiincludes such concepts as youth leadership, service learning, youth empowerment, and youth 
engagementfl (Benson et al., 2006, p. 910). Again, th
e students interviewed for this study support this kind of intervention. All of them expressed a desire to he
lp others, to make a difference for 
someone else. Marisa and David, 
the most involved, benefited great
ly from the opportunities for service and leadership that their 
school offered them. The others al
so took pride in the fact that they could help others. The resulting increase in
 their sense of agency and self-efficacy in turn 
enhanced their belief that they had control over their own lives, and so on through the feedback loop.  In addition to these direct interventions, schools can also work indirectly, through othersŠthey can approach the ideal where all contexts of a child™s life work together. Though 
174research shows that schools on their own have a low effect on students when compared to other 
contexts in which they live, the school also regularly interacts with all of these contexts. Given the interactive bi-directional feedback among all of the influen
ces in a child™s life, some school 
effects certainly influence and are embedded in 
these other contexts. In
tervening to improve supports in the school is the most
 direct way for schools to influence student academic success. 
At the same time, the school does not exist in
 isolation and working to improve the other 
contexts can only enhance the school™s positive influence.  Connecting what happens in school to other contexts, in mutually supportive 
relationships, can increase assets and lead to better school performance. Connections between 
home and school and between school and commu
nity youth programs are two examples of 
important points where schools can ha
ve significant influence. Given the key role of the family 
from the student™s perspective, 
schools that dismiss the family as unable or even unwilling to 
help their child achieve academically risk alienating the student.  
These are just two examples 
of the ways that schools can make a difference. Schools are 
important in children™s lives. Th
ere is much beyond their control,
 but human development theory 
and developmental factors and frameworks suggest
 paths to greater influence on school success and ultimately on adult thriving.  
Conclusion. While the results of this study support
 the hypotheses, this research also examines positive youth development theory in re
lationship to different outcomes. The more 
interesting and valuable results come from th
e questions raised, a sample of which I have 
discussed here. Continuing research will help to 
shed more light on important questions of how 
best to help our youth develop the skills and attitudes they need to succeed in the world today. The combination of quantitative and qualitative 
analyses here has worked to gain a deeper 
175understanding of the supports and motivations that help young people to overcome the obstacles 
in their lives.    
   176  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  APPENDICES   177APPENDIX A  40 Developmental Assets and Categories 
  178 Figure6.40Developmental
AssetsandCategories
179APPENDIX B  Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) Survey 
  180 Reproduced here with permission. 
Figure7.DevelopmentalAssetsProfile
(DAP)
Survey181   Reproduced here with permission. 
Figure7(cont™d)
182APPENDIX C  Interview Protocol   183Developmental Assets and School Persistence Interview Protocol - Student 
 Interviews of selected students will expand on data fr
om the DAP survey, using both full sample results and results for the student being interviewed. These in
terviews will include follow-up questions geared 
toward clarifying and expanding on answers to the original questions. All follow-up questions will be in 
the same vein as the original questions. The focus 
of the interviews will be on the student™s experience 
and perceptions. Though developmental assets are of 
interest, answers including other factors will be 
particularly noted. 
 Interviews will be conducted during the participants™ 10
th grade year, but will focus on the school or 
schools attended in 9
th grade. Written consent/assent will be obtained before arranging for the interview. 
Subjects will remain anonymous in any compila
tion or reporting of the data and results. 
   --------------------------------------------------------- 
I will be asking questions mainly about the school or schools you attended in 9
th grade. I will let you know if I am asking about your 10th grade school or your 8th grade school.  
 1) What do you think made a difference in yo
ur decision to stay in (leave) your 9
th grade school(s)? 2) [Follow-up questions to encourage participant to elaborate on the answer, including both 
expansion and more details.]  
 3) (For each 9th grade and 10 grade school/program) Why did you choose [school name] school?  a) Why was it the right school for you? 4) How did you find out about [school name] school? 
a) Did you or your parents first decide to look at the school? 
b) When did you begin to look at your 9th grade school choices? 5) Describe your school.  [Follow up as necessary to elicit a description of things that are important to this student.] 
6) What is the focus of your school/program? 
7) What are the best things about your school?  8) What are the worst things about your school? 
9) Tell me about the teachers/principal at your school. 
10) What would you tell a friend who is like you about your school? A friend who is different? 
18411) Tell me about other students. Are your friends at
 this school, too? Did you come here because of your friends? 
12) Describe yourself as a student in this 
school. What are your strengths? What are your weaknesses? 
13) How would your teachers describe you as a student? 
14) Do you have someone you can count on to help when you need it?  
a) Who?  b) Do family members [especially parents/guardians] help? 15) How do they help? What does help mean? Give me examples of the kind of help you get.  
a) [Follow up as needed with possible types of help.] b) How often do you get that help? 
c) Do you ask for help or is it offered to you? 16) Follow-up questions to clarify answers to any of the above questions. 
17) Who do you live with? (both parents? One parent? Someone else?) 
18) How much education do your parents/guar
dians have? Where did they go to school? 
19) What are your parents™/guardians™ occupations (where do they work)? 
20) What language do you and your parents/guardians speak at home? 21) What were your school grades last year (9th grade)? (mostly As, about half As and half Bs, mostly 
Bs, about half Bs and half Cs, mostly Cs, about half Cs and half Ds, mostly Ds, mostly below Ds)  22) Are this year™s grades the same, higher, or lower than last year? 
23) Do you expect to graduate from this (10th grade) school? a) Why or why not? 24) Final follow-up questions to clarify anything that arose during the interview. 
185APPENDIX D  Parent/Student Consent/Assent Form English and Spanish   186CONSENT/ASSENT FORM   Developmental Assets and School Choice Persistence Research Participant Information and 
Consent/Assent ΠStudent and Parent   If you are the parent/guardian of a child under 18 years old who is being invited to participate in this study, the word fiyoufl in this document 
refers to your child. You will be asked to read 
and sign this document to give permi
ssion for your child to participate.  If you are a student reading this document becau
se you are being invited to be in this study, 
the word fiyoufl in this document refers to you. You will be asked to read and sign this 
document to indicate your 
willingness to participate.   You are being asked to participate in a research study of the relationship between student Developmental Assets Πcertain attitudes, charact
eristics, and outside factors Πand choice school persistence. Participation in this research proj
ect is completely voluntar
y. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time a
nd withdraw. You may ch
oose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time.  
 Study title: Developmental Assets
 and Choice School Persistence Researchers: Mary L. Mason 
College of Education, Michigan State University  203 Erickson Hall, 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI  48824  
 e-mail: masonm14@msu.edu; phone:  469-540-9576  
Dr. Rebecca Jacobsen 
College of Education, Michigan State University 116G  Erickson Hall, 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI 48824  
   e-mail: rjacobs@msu.edu; phone: 517-353-1993 
 Youmaybechosentoparticipateinoneortwointerviews.
Ifyouare
chosen,each
interview
willtakeapproximately
3045minutes.
Students
willbeaskedtodiscusstheresourcesthathavehelped
them
succeed,
thereasonsforchoosingandstaying
inorleavingaparticularschoolorprogram,theparticipation
offriends,teachers,
andparents
inthe
process,howtheyseethemselvesasastudent,
andbasicinformation
onparent/guardian
educationandoccupations.
 You will receive a $10 iTunes gift card after the interview in appr
eciation for your participation. 
Researchers would also like permission to acce
ss your student information, maintained by DISD, 
including your race/ethnicity; eligibility for tale
nted and gifted programs, and special education 
and free or reduced price lunch programs; grades
; survey scores; standardized test scores; 
attendance and current and prior schools attended. (The failure to allow access to this 
information will not affect elig
ibility for or participation 
in Child Nutrition Programs.) 
 187All results of this research will be treated with 
strict confidence. Your name or other identifying 
features will not be used in any analysis or in any reporting of this research. The results may be 
published or presented at professional meetings, but 
the identities of all re
search participants will 
remain confidential. Audio recordings will be ma
de of interviews to allow us to check the 
accuracy of our notes and for transcripts. Only th
e two research investigators will have access to 
those recordings and other information. All pers
onal information will be destroyed after the end of the project. Your privacy will be protec
ted to the maximum extent allowable by law. 
 Participating in this study poses minimal or no 
risk either to you or to your school. The only potential discomfort is that typically experienced by some 
when being interviewed. Your 
participation will help id
entify the assets that may help students in their chosen schools. If you 
have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact one of the 
Researchers: Dr. Rebecca Jacobsen or Mary L. 
Mason, at the addresses above.     Yoursignature
belowmeans
that1)youhaveread
and
understood
the
information
above,havehadanopportunitytoaskquestions,
andvoluntarilyagreetoparticipate
inthisresearch
study;2)youunderstand
thatwhile
thisprojecthasbeenreviewed
by[SchoolDistrict],[the
SchoolDistrict]isnotconducting
theprojectactivities;
and3)acopyofthis
signedagreement
willremaininyourpermanent
schoolfolderinaccordancewiththerecordsretentionschedule.
Ifyoulaterdecide
towithdrawyourconsent,youshouldcontact
oneoftheResearchers. If you are a student participant, please sign, date, and print your name and birthday.  
    PARTICIPANT CONSENT/ASSENT 
 Signature _____________________________ Date ______________ 

 Name (printed) _________________________ Birthday____________________ 
 School(s) attended in 8th grade ___________________  9th grade ___________________________  If you are the parent of a participant under the 
age of 18, please sign, date, and print your 
name and your child™s name.  PARENT/LEGAL GUARDIAN CONSENT if pa
rticipant is under the age of 18  Signature _____________________________ Date ______________ 
 Name (printed) _________________________ 
 188Name of child partic
ipant (printed)_________________________________  Parent/Guardian contact information:  
 Telephone no.  ____________________   E-mail address ___________________________ 
 You will be given a copy of this form to keep. 
  189CONSENT/ASSENT FORM  Recursos de Desarrollo (Developmental Assets) y  Persistencia en Elección de Escuela  
 Información Sobre Participantes en Invest
igación y Consentimiento/Asentimiento Œ Estudiante y Padre   Si usted es el padre/guardián de un niño/niña quien es menor de 18 años y quien está siendo 
invitado a participar en este estudio, la palabra fiustedfl en este documento se refiere a su 
niño/niña. Se le pedirá que lea y firme este doc
umento para dar permiso para que su niño/niña 
participe.   Si usted es un estudiante leyendo este documento porque usted está siendo invitado a participar 
en este estudio, la palabra fiustedfl en este documento se refiere a usted. Se le pedirá que lea y 

firme este documento para indicar su disposición a participar.  
 Se le pide a usted que participe en un proyecto de investigación sobre la relación entre los recursos 
de desarrollo (Developmental Assets) del estudiante
 Œ ciertas actitudes, características, y factores 
externos Œ y persistencia en elección de escuela. Participación en esta investigación es 

completamente voluntaria.  Usted tiene el derecho a decir no.  Usted puede cambiar de opinión en 
cualquier momento y retirarse. Usted puede optar por no responder a preguntas específicas o a dejar 
de participar en cualquier momento. 
 Título del estudio: Developmental Assets and School Choice Persistence 

Investigadores:  Mary L. Mason 
College of Education, Michigan State University 
 203 Erickson Hall, 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI  48824  
 correo electrónico: masonm14@msu.edu; teléfono: 469-540-9576  
Dr. Rebecca Jacobsen 
College of Education, Michigan State University 
116G  Erickson Hall, 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI 48824  
   correo electrónico: rjacobs@msu.edu; teléfono: 517-353-1993 
 Usted puede ser escogido/a a participar en una o dos en
trevistas. Si usted es elegido/a, cada entrevista 
tomará aproximadamente 30-45 minutos. Se les pedirá 
a los estudiantes que discutan los recursos que 
los han ayudado a tener éxito, las razones por elegir
 y permanecer o dejar una escuela en particular o 
programa, la participación de amigos, maestros/as, y padres en el proceso, cómo se ven a sí mismos 
como estudiantes, e información básica sobre la 
educación y ocupaciones de los padres/guardianes.  
 Usted recibirá una tarjeta de regalo de $10 de iTunes después de la entrevista en agradecimiento por 
su participación. Los investigadores también quieren pedirle permiso para acceder la información del 
estudiante, mantenida por DISD, incluyendo su rasa/etnicidad; elegibilidad para programas de 
estudiantes talentosos y dotados, educación especial, y de almuerzo gratis o precio reducido; grados; 

resultados de encuestas; resultados de exámenes
 estandarizados; asistencia; y actual y previas 
escuelas atendidas. (El hecho de no darnos acceso a esta información no afectará su elegibilidad para 
o participación en el Programa de Nutrición para Niños Œ Child Nutrition Programs.) 
190 Todos los resultados de esta investigación serán trat
ados con estricta confidencia. Su nombre u otra 
información personal no serán usados en cualquier análisis o en ningún informe de esta 
investigación. Los resultados pueden ser publicados o presentados en conferencias profesionales, 
pero las identidades de todos los participantes serán confidenciales. Durante las entrevistas, 
grabaciones de audio van a ser hechas, y estas nos pueden ayudar a comprobar la exactitud de 
nuestras notas y transcripciones. Sólo las dos investigadoras tendrán acceso a esas grabaciones y otra 
información. Toda la información personal será destruida después del fin del proyecto. Su privacidad 

será protegida en la medida máxima permitida por la ley.  
 Su participación en este estudio representa un mínimo o ningún riesgo a usted o su escuela. La única 
molestia potencial es esa cual se siente 
por algunos cuando están siendo entrevistados. Su 
participación ayudará identificar los recursos que puedan ayudar a estudiantes permanecer en las 

escuelas elegidas. Si usted tiene cualquier inqui
etud o pregunta sobre este estudio, como cuestiones 
científicas, como hacer cualquier parte, o para reportar una lesión, por favor contacte una de las 
investigadoras responsables por el proyecto: 
Dr. Rebecca Jacobsen o Mary L. Mason, en las 
direcciones escritas arriba.  
 Su firma abajo implica que 1) usted ha leído y entendido la información presentada arriba, ha tenido 
la oportunidad para hacer preguntas, y voluntariamente está de acuerdo en participar en esta 

investigación; 2) usted entiende que mientras este 
proyecto ha sido revisado por el Distrito Escolar, 
[el Distrito] no va a conducir las actividades del proyecto; y 3) una copia firmada de este acuerdo se 
mantendrá en la carpeta escolar permanente en acuerdo con los registros de retención horaria. Si 
usted después decide retirar su consentimiento, usted debe contactar a una de las investigadoras.  Si usted es el estudiante participando, por favo
r firme, escriba la fecha, y escriba su nombre y 
fecha de nacimiento.  
    CONSENTIMIENTO/ASENTIMIENTO DEL PARTICIPANTE 
 Firma _____________________________ Fecha ______________ 
 
Nombre (escrito) _________________________ 
Fecha de nacimiento ____________________ 
 La escuela asistido/a en el grado 8 ___________________  el grado 9_________________________ 
 Si usted es el padre de un participante menos la edad de 18, por favor firme, escriba la fecha, y 

escriba su nombre y el nombre de su niño/niña.  
 CONSENTIMIENTO DEL PADRE/GUARDIAN LEGAL si
 el participante es menor de 18 años 
 Firma _____________________________ Fecha ______________ 
 
Nombre (escrito) _________________________ 
 Nombre del niño/niña participando (escrito) _________________________________ 
 191Información de contacto del padre/guardián:  
 Numero de teléfono ____________________   Correo electrónico __________________________ 
  Se le dará una copia de este formulario para que usted tenga una copia.   
     192APPENDIX E  Consent Request Letter English and Spanish   193CONSENT REQUEST LETTER  _______, 2014  Dear Parent/Guardian,   Your child, _____________, has been chosen to be part of a research study on those things that might help students do well in school. We wa
nt to know how students see their school 
experience, so your child™s feedback is important.  
 We will interview students in the next few weeks.
 To thank your child for participating in an interview, we will give her a $10 iTunes gift card
 at the end of the interview. The interview will 
take no more than 45 minutes. We can meet 
somewhere you can get to easily, such as a community college, coffee shop, library, re
creation center, or other public place. 
 Topics covered in the interview will include the 
resources that have helped your child succeed in 
school, the reasons for choosing and staying in or leaving a particular school or program, the participation of friends, teachers,
 and parents in the process, how
 she sees herself as a student, 
and basic information on parent/gua
rdian education and occupations.  This research study has been approved by the [School District], but [the District] is not conducting the project activities. All results will be treated with strict confidence. Your child™s name or other identifying features will not be used in any analysis or in any reporting of this 
research. Only the two researchers will have 
access to the interview and other information. 
 Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. 
You and/or your child have the right to say no. You may change your mind at 
any time and withdraw. You may choose not to 
answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. More
 information and details are in 
the consent form attached to this letter. We mu
st have this consent form signed by a parent or 
legal guardian and the student before we begin the interview. Please read it carefully. 
 I will contact you in the ne
xt several days. If you are willing for 
your child to participate, we will 
then arrange a time and place for the interview.  
In the meantime, if you have any questions, or 
would like to arrange an interview time, please call or email me at: 
   Phone: 469-540-9576 
   Email: masonm14@msu.edu 
 Sincerely,  
  Mary L. Mason PhD Candidate, Educational Policy 194 CONSENT REQUEST LETTER _________,2014QueridoPadre/Guardián,

Suhija,__________,
hasidoelegida
para
participar
enunproyecto
deinvestigaciónsobrelascosasquepueden
ayudaralosestudiantes
parahacer
bien
enlaescuela.Queremos
sabercómolosestudiantesvensuexperiencia
enlaescuela,
asíque
lareaccióndesuhijaesimportante.
Vamosarealizarlasentrevistasenlaspróximas
semanas.Enagradecimientoporsuparticipación,
suhijarecibiráunatarjeta
deregalo
de$10deiTunesdespués
delaentrevista.
Laentrevista
tomaráaproximadamente
3045minutos.
Podemosencontrarnosenalgúnlugaraque
ellapuede
llegar
fácilmente,comouncommunity
college,café,bilioteca,
centro
derecreación,
uotrolugarpúblico.
Selespediráalosestudiantes
que
discutanlosrecursosqueloshanayudadoatener
éxito,
lasrazonesporelegirypermanecerodejarunaescuelaenparticular,
laparticipación
deamigos,maestros/as,ypadresenelproceso,cómo
sevenasímismoscomo
estudiantes,
einformación
básicasobrelaeducación
yocupacionesdelospadres/guardientes.

Esteproyectohasidoaprobado
por[elDistrito],pero
[elDistrito]novaaconducir
lasactividades
delproyecto.Todoslosresultadosdeestainvestigación
serántratados
conestricta
confidencia.
Sunombre
uotrainformaciónpersonal
noseránusados
encualquier
análisisoenningún
informe
deesta
investigación.Sólolasdosinvestigadorastendránaccesoalaentrevista
yotrainformación.
Participaciónenestainvestigación
escompletamente
voluntaria.Ustedysuhija
tieneelderecho
adecirno.Ustedes
pueden
cambiardeopinión
encualquier
momento
yretirarse.Ellapuede
optarpornoresponderapreguntas
específicas
oadejardeparticipar
encualquier
momento.
Haymás
informaciónydetalles
enlaformadeconsentimientoencerradaconestacarta.Antesdecomenzar
laentrevista,esnecesarioque
tengamos
esta
formafirmado
porunpadre/guardián
legalylaestudiante.
Porfavor,léaloconatención.Voyallamaraustedenlospróximosdías.
Siustedestá
dispuestoparaque
suhijaparticipe,
entoncesvamosaconcertar
unahora
yunlugarparalaentrevista.
Mientras
tanto,siusted
tiene
alguna
pregunta,
osideseaconcertarunahoradeentrevista,
porfavorllameoenvíeme
uncorreoelectrónicoa:
Teléfono:469
5409576
Correoelectrónico:
masonm14@msu.edu

Sincerely,

MaryL.Mason
PhDCandidate,Educational
Policy  195APPENDIX F  Missing DAP Survey Scores 
  196Missing DAP Survey Scores  A large number of students have no DAP scores or only partial scores. Two tables in 
Chapter Four compare the characteristics of students with complete scores with those of students 

with no scores: Table 6 for the full 8th grade sample, and Table 7, for the 9th grade sample used in the logistic regression analyses. In the 9
th grade sample, 62.5% responded to the DAP survey and 
have complete scores, le
aving 37.5% non-responders.  The purpose of my research is to identify fact
ors, in this case developmental assets, that 
might be important in achieving certai
n school success outcomesŠschool choice and 
persistence. Prior research shows an overall positive effect of assets on short- and long-term 
outcomes, but there is little work tying specific asse
ts or types of assets to particular outcomes.  
The students in this study are not a random sa
mple, even when including students with no 
DAP scores, and so do not represent all students.  At the same time this is a large sample and not 
atypical of the students in large, urban school districts, especially those in the Southwest United States. While I cannot make causal inferences, I can 
point to factors that appear likely to make a 
difference for a large number of students. The field of youth development is relatively young and 
still developing. Refining the understanding of how different factors work in different settings, for different youth and in different combinations, is one of its current tasks. This work contributes to that effort. Because the results of this study are not 
causal, the missing DAP scores are of less 
concern than they otherwise might be. With only th
e students with complete scores, the sample is 
still very large, more than 5,600 
students. Though they are not statistically representative of the larger population, they do include students with a wide variety of characteristics. My purpose is to explore possible relationships between developmental assets and school choice and 
197persistence for further consideration. No matter the type of sample
, results that apply to nearly 6,000 students with a variety of characteristics is worthy of further consideration.  While predicting or imputing valuesŠin th
is case DAP scoresŠseems a reasonable, 
option, it is not necessarily useful here. Resi
lience theory posits that some youth who look the 
same in terms of demographic and other charac
teristics, particularly economic and social 
disadvantage, are able to overcome obstacles 
and succeed where their similar peers are not. 
Predicting or imputing missing scores relies on th
e assumption that students who look the same 
in observable characteristics will possess similar unobservable devel
opmental assets. This is the 
exact opposite of the theory behind my hypotheses. As a result, predicting or imputing missing 
scores is more likely to obscure 
the results than to enhance them.  
The results reported in Chapter Four include only those students with complete DAP 
scores. I also undertook to analyze possible effects of the missing 
scores and used the imputation function in SPSS to estimate them. A number of
 variables were used for those estimates, 
including gender, race/ethnicity, limited English proficiency, sp
ecial education eligibility, talented and gifted program eligibility, free a
nd reduced price lunch (FRPL) eligibility, 8th and 9th grade GPAs, 8
th grade attendance, and each of the 
DAP aggregate, category and context 
scores.  However, when the imputation was done, a larg
e number of imputed values were outside 
the feasible score range, some fa
r outside. I did apply a procedure to constrain the values within 
the actual range, but it was not effective. These extreme scores are found 
in every asset category and context. The most extreme, the family context, has 636 scores between 31 and 46 (the 

maximum possible score is 30). The results for that
 context with imputed sc
ores also deviate the most from the results with actual scores. Four 
categories have between 112 and 317 scores above 198the maximum; two categories actually have scores
 below zero. The other categories and contexts have fewer impossible scores, but all have some.  
Table 24 Compares the means of the actual 
DAP scores to the means of the imputed 
scores for each DAP aggregate, category and context. 
  Table24.Comparison
ofActual
andImputed
DAPScoresActualscoresNvariesaImputed
scoresN=9,973ScoredifferenceScoredif/SDDAPscorevariablesMeanSDMeanSE
TotalAssets41.889.52141.83.0810.050.005External
aggregate
and
categories
External
20.925.19420.90.0470.020.004
Support
21.925.98721.92.0630.000.000
Empowerment20.855.69520.83.0610.020.004
Boundaries&Expectations
21.675.67221.62.0580.050.009
UseofTime
18.667.25018.70.0740.040.006Internalaggregate
and
categories
Internal
20.934.86420.93.0420.000.000
Commitment
toLearning20.236.06620.17.0620.060.010
PositiveValues
20.635.32420.68.0520.050.009
SocialCompetencies20.975.41320.94.0500.030.006
PositiveIdentity
21.385.70421.44.0560.060.011ContextsPersonal21.354.81921.38.0450.030.006Social21.035.24921.02.0460.010.002Family23.545.73623.54.0650.000.000School20.085.93020.01.0540.070.012Community18.655.90318.71.0540.060.010aNvariesfrom6,128to6,277.
199The choice and persistence analyses were then
 repeated using the imputed scores. Tables 
25 and 26 show the choice results for both imputed and actual scores. 
 Table25.Likelihood
ofActivevs.PassiveSchoolChoice:Aggregate
DAPScores
Actual(N=5,611)and
Imputed
(N=9,993)TotalDAP
ExternalandInternal
ExternalInternal
Variables
With
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYes
DAPtotal
Actual0.017***
0.002

Imputed0.017***
0.003


External
Actual
0.028**
0.014
0.020**
0.001
Imputed
0.015
0.011
0.018**
0.000

Internal

Actual
0.065***
0.021
+0.041***
0.009
Imputed
0.051***
0.017
0.039***
0.009

Gender
Actual0.346***
0.030

Imputed0.280***
0.049


Race
Black

Actual0.249**
0.168*

Imputed0.166**
0.236***


White

Actual0.179
0.669***

Imputed0.058
0.563***


Other
Actual0.343
+0.036

Imputed0.492**
0.106


FRPL
Actual0.446***
0.255*

Imputed0.391***
0.252**


LEP
Actual1.465***
0.903***

Imputed1.274***
0.734***


SPED
Actual0.849***
0.123

Imputed0.579***
0.075


TAG
Actual0.788***

Imputed0.827***


GPA
Actual0.145***

Imputed0.137***

Note.Values
arecoefficients(B).Odds
Ratio
isnotincluded.+p
.10.
*p
.05.
**p.01.
***
p.001.
 200 Table26.Likelihood
ofActivevs.PassiveSchoolChoice:DAPScore
CategoriesandContextsActual(N=5,611)
and
Imputed
(N=9,993)
ExternalCategories
Internal
CategoriesAllCategoriesContextsVariables
With
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYes
Support
Actual0.041***
0.034**

0.038***
0.031**

Imputed0.030**
0.021*

0.027**
0.019*

Empowerment

Actual0.019*
0.026**

0.029**
0.030**

Imputed0.013
0.020
+0.018
0.023
+
Boundaries
Actual0.057***
0.043***
0.034**
0.034**
Imputed0.044***
0.029**
0.027**
0.022*

UseofTime
Actual0.023***
0.018**
0.015**
0.013*
Imputed0.018**
0.013*
0.014*
0.009

Commit
2learn

Actual
0.052***
0.014
0.051***
0.012
Imputed
0.049***
0.013
0.047***
0.012


Pos.Values

Actual
0.024*
0.009
0.023*
0.010
Imputed
0.024**
0.003
0.027**
0.004


SocialComp.
Actual
0.046***
0.012
0.049***
0.015
Imputed
0.037**
0.010
0.039**
0.012


Pos.Identity
Actual
0.036***
0.027**
0.024**
0.017
+Imputed
0.027**
0.018
+0.020*
0.010


Personal
Actual
0.022
+0.022
+Imputed
0.014
0.008


Social
Actual
0.065***
0.037**
Imputed
0.042**
0.020


Family

Actual
0.035***
0.031***
Imputed
0.023*
0.021*


School
Actual
0.039***
0.012
Imputed
0.038***
0.008


Community

Actual
0.017*
0.005
Imputed
0.014*
0.004

Note.Values
arecoefficients(B).Odds
Ratio
isnotincluded.+p
.10.
*p
.05.
**p.01.
***
p.001.
 201 Tables 27 and 28 show the persistence results using imputed and actual scores. 
Table27.Likelihood
ofOne
yearSchool
Persistence:AggregateDAPScoresActual(N=5,611)
and
Imputed
(N=9,993)TotalDAP
ExternalandInternal
ExternalInternal
Variables
With
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYes
DAPtotal
Actual0.015***
0.009*

Imputed0.012***
0.004


External
Actual
0.007
0.014
0.025**
0.017*

Imputed
0.008
0.011
0.018**
0.009


Internal

Actual
0.015
+0.004
0.030***
0.016
+Imputed
0.015
+0.002
0.021***
0.006

Gender
Actual0.020
0.150
+
Imputed0.078+
0.010
+
Race
Black

Actual0.665***
0.538***

Imputed0.912***
0.746***


White

Actual0.404
0.590*
Imputed0.527***
0.789***


Other
Actual0.429
+0.560*
Imputed0.357*
0.595***


FRPL
Actual0.124
0.082

Imputed0.070
0.154*


LEP
Actual0.298**
0.114

Imputed0.304***
0.028


SPED
Actual0.038
0.161

Imputed.0.122
0.112


TAG
Actual0.379**

Imputed0.501***


GPA
Actual0.062***

Imputed0.067***
0.067***
0.067***
Note.Values
arecoefficients(B).Odds
Ratio
isnotincluded.+p
.10.
*p
.05.
**p.01.
***
p.001..
 202 Table28.LikelihoodofOneyearSchoolPersistence:DAPScoreCategoriesandContextsActual(N=5,611)
and
Imputed
(N=9,993)ExternalCategories
Internal
CategoriesAllCategoriesContextsDAPVariables
With
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsWith
academicsNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYes
Support
Actual0.002
0.003
0.001
0.002
Imputed0.008
0.002

0.007
0.003


Empowerment

Actual0.007
0.004
0.001
0.003
Imputed0.002
0.003

0.002
0.002

Boundaries
Actual0.021
0.015
0.016
0.017
Imputed0.028**
0.017*
0.023*
0.019*


UseofTime0.003
0.005

0.002
0.001
Actual0.002
0.002
0.004
0.001
Imputed


Commit
2learn

Actual
0.015
0.001
0.012
0.004
Imputed
0.025**
0.002
0.021*
0.001

Pos.Values

Actual
0.035**
0.024
+0.040**
0.030*
Imputed
0.030**
0.014
0.036**
0.019
+
SocialComp.
Actual
0.034**
0.025*
0.031*
0.022
+Imputed
0.029**
0.015
0.026*
0.012

Pos.Identity
Actual
0.015
0.017
+0.012
0.012
Imputed
0.005
0.013
0.006
0.002

Personal
Actual
0.002
0.004
Imputed
0.013
0.010

Social
Actual
0.018
0.010
Imputed
0.014
0.005

Family

Actual
0.021*
0.022*
Imputed
0.004
0.006

School
Actual
0.015
0.006
Imputed
0.028***
0.010

Community

Actual
0.026*
0.015
Imputed
0.013*
0.002

Note.Values
arecoefficients(B).Odds
Ratio
isnotincluded.+p
.10.
*p
.05.
**p.01.
***
p.001.
 203APPENDIX G  DAP Score Distribution Histograms 
  204Figure8.DAPAggregate
ScoreDistributions
    205Figure9.DAPExternalCategoryScoreDistributions
    206Figure10.DAPInternal
CategoryScoreDistributions
    207Figure11.DAPContextScoreDistributions    208Figure11(cont™d)  209APPENDIX H  Expanded Student Profiles   210Expanded Student Profiles Marisa 
 A 16-year-old 10th grade student at ECHS, Marisa is
 quietly assured. She considers my questions and then gives thoughtful answers. Soft-spoken and articulate, Marisa describes herself as being very shy before beginning 9th grade. She credits her opportunities at ECHS with helping her to overcome her shyness. As she describes it,  
This school has really helped me a lot with 
my communication skills. I always used to be 
really shy, like never liked talking to anybody. But then I got to the Ambassadors Club 
and that really helped me. Now I just can really talk to anybody. 

The Ambassadors, according to Marisa, are fit
he leaders of the school . . . the ones who go out and represent the school . . . the top, top students.fl   Her family speaks Spanish at home. Marisa speaks English very well, with only a slight 
accent. Marisa™s family is relatively isolated so
cially. Until recently, they lived in a dangerous 
neighborhood where fiat night all you would hear was sirens and gunshots and you would wake up and there would be blood on your porch.fl Neighbors were drug dealers and frequently visited by the police, so the family did not interact with them. In th
eir new, calmer neighborhood, they 
still don™t figo outside and talk to neighbors.fl As Marisa says of her family, fiWe just stick 
together by ourselves, so we™re independent.fl  RelativesŠaunt
s and unclesŠand some friends 
from church have helped out financially from 
time to time. But, again, Marisa emphasizes the 
family relationships, fiIt™s just fa
mily, we just stick together.fl 
Her older sister earned an associate™s degree but her plans for more education were 
derailed by circumstances that Marisa does not
 describe. Her brother graduated from the 
neighborhood high school this year, but has no plans to pursue further education. Though her 211sister and brother have exceeded their mother™s edu
cational level, they have not fully realized her 
dream of a good education and a better life for 
her children. Marisa, the youngest child, is the best hope. She feels that pressu
re but sees it as a motivator. She knows she can™t fiback downfl 
and says, fiI™m not a quitter.fl Grades are important to Marisa. She sees good grades in high school as one step on the path to her goals of graduating from college and getting a good job. Her 9th grade GPA was the highest of all ECHS 9th graders. She has been identified as el
igible for talented and gifted (TAG) programs but has not attended the magnet schoo
ls specifically created for TAG students. 
Marisa considered several school options for 9th grade. She™s always known that she 
wanted to attend a magnet high school. Her interest
 in science led her to consider the health 
professions school, but doing high school and college together had been her goal since 6th grade. After seeing ECHS students in her college classes, Marisa™s sist
er encouraged her to apply to ECHS. She applied to two early college schools and was accepted at ECHS. She and her 8th grade friends wanted to go to the same high sc
hool, but none of her friends applied to ECHS. Marisa is still close to those fr
iends, but has also made
 new friends in school. Of her decision to apply to an early college school, Marisa says, fiI wasn™t sure I could handle that. But I was just, like, might as well just try it, and if I like it I™ll
 stay.fl ECHS has turned out to be a good fit. Marisa™s DAP scores are consistently high, w
ith a total score of 53 (of 60). Her internal and external scores are essentially equal. Her low community context score (18 of 30) is in 
keeping with her family™s isolation from th
e neighborhood and the larger community and also consistent with the relatively low community scores in the sample overall. Her score in the 

support category is also lower than her other scores (21 of 30) but still relatively high. Based on her interview responses and her school and family context scores, 
this is most likely, again, the 212result of family isolation from neighbors and 
the larger community. It appears, though, that strong family and school support make up for the 
lack of outside connections and support.  David An outgoing and engaging 16-year-old 10th grade student at ECHS, David speaks freely 
and confidently.  His answers to questions are spontaneous but sometimes disorganized. At the 
same time, he projects a positive fican dofl attitude 
and sees himself in leadership roles in school 
and community activities. David, like Marisa, is a member of the Ambassadors Club, which 
promotes the school publicly. Members also part
icipate in community service activities both within and outside the school. The club provides an outlet for his natural enthusiasm and an 
opportunity to develop his leadership skills. He takes his role seriously, especially the need to set a good example for other students. Specifically, he says, fiWe help the community, we represent 
our school very well, and whenever anybody needs help, we can help them.fl  His family speaks Spanish at home. Though 
David successfully exited the district™s 
bilingual program after the 4
th grade, he says he still has problems with English. He speaks with 
more of an accent than some other students and 
stumbles at times over words and grammar. He 
handles these challenges as he does all of the challenges he encounters, with hard work. Personal motivation and effort are a constant theme as
 David talks about his life and his schooling. 
David™s family is relatively isolated. Their 
primary connections are 
with extended family 
members. They have no real cont
act with neighbors, who are few and mostly elderly. David does 
not seem particularly aware of wh
at his parents™ lives are like, so
 there may be other connections 
that he is not aware of. 
About choosing a 9th grade school, David says, fiThe choices I make is [sic] for my own 
good, which will affect me later in the future.fl 
Recognizing the importance of his choices, he 
213considers them carefully. When deciding on a 
high school, he did not consider his assigned school because fiIt™s not a good school. It™s a lot of violence and it™s crazy over there.fl He was accepted at both Management and Business High
 school and ECHS. Though it was a difficult 
decision, he decided on the early college program b
ecause of the potential to earn an associate™s 
degree and save time and money. Da
vid sees learning to navigate the college environment as a 
real advantage. It could influence his ability to get scholarship
s and admission to college as well 
as preparing him for college life. 
Of the 70 students in the 10th grade class at ECHS, David is one of 12 from the same 
middle school. While that is a larg
e proportion of ECHS students, it is a very small proportion of 
the more than 600 students in his 8
th grade class. It is not surprising, then, that David did not know anyone from his school was applying to ECHS
. His choice of schools, he says, was not influenced by his peers. Nor was it influenced by anyone at his middle school. He learned about 
ECHS from a friend. David™s parent
s supported his choice but, he says, fiI pretty much made my 
own choice of . . . choosing my own schools.fl  
 While academic success is a primary focus, 
David participates in other activities. In 
addition to the Ambassadors Club, he is active in
 another school-sponsored service club that regularly volunteers at community events. Outsid
e of school, David works as a DJ for parties as a way to pursue his love of mu
sic and to make some money.  
 David™s DAP scores fall in the figoodfl 
range. His total score is 44 out of 60, with identical scores (22 of 30) for external and internal assets. Consistent with David™s interview 
responses, the support category score falls in the excellent range, with the empowerment and 
commitment to learning categories just behi
nd it at the top of the good range. Interview 214responses are also consistent with his DAP scores in showing that family and then school are 
strong positive influences.  Samantha A 15-year-old 10th grader at Early College High Sc
hool, Samantha responds easily and candidly to my questions. Though she does not often take time to think before answering, her 
answers are well-organized and she often elaborates on answers without prompting. Our 
interaction feels more conversational than most.  
Her family speaks Spanish at home. Though she speaks with a slight accent, Samantha 
speaks English clearly and is easily understood. Her family moved recently because in the old 
neighborhood, fithere was a lot of robbing and police would be there almost every day.fl They 
had little contact with neighbors. 
In their new home they still ha
ve little contact with their neighbors. The family spends time with an 
aunt and uncle. Though she doesn™t emphasize the 
family unity to the extent some others do, her fam
ily appears also to be somewhat isolated within 
the community.  
Samantha knew she did not want to attend 
her neighborhood high school. She describes it as one of fithose non-good schoolsfl and that fiThey™ve had people come in with guns and all that. 
It™s not really safe.fl She got no help from th
e middle school in maki
ng her high school choice. fiMy middle school wasn™t, they were
 like lazy, they weren™t organized, so they wouldn™t really inform me a lot. So I was like well, it™s up to me now. I have to make the choice.fl 
 Samantha and David attended the same 
middle school and, like David, none of the 12 
ECHS students from her middle scho
ol were her friends there. In fact, only one of Samantha™s 
8th grade friends applied to choice schools. She says, fiMy friends weren™t that interested in education. . . . They didn™t focus on their education.fl She has since become friends with David 
215and others from her middle school but they we
re not friends when she was applying to high 
schools. Her new friends, she says, are kind and responsible and focus on their education. The health professions school was Samantha™s 
first choice, but her test scores were too low. Next was an early college high school becau
se of the opportunity to get an associate™s 
degree and save time in college. When ECHS di
d not respond to her application, she and her mother called to follow up. Samantha decided to fig
ive it a shot firstfl and then they took turns calling after that. Finally, fiafter a long time of calling, they said ye
s, I got in.fl The persistence, she says, made the difference because, fiIt™s sincere . . . and shows that you want to go into the 

school and get your education.fl School has not always been smooth sailing for Samantha. She says, fiI had a lot of 
problems in middle school. I was struggling a lot. 
My grades weren™t high.fl  The poor attitudes of others affected her. Students were filazy, they would do drugs, they would skip school.fl Disruptive students claimed the teachers™ attent
ion during class. And some teachers fiare lazy, 
some of them you wouldn™t do anything in the cla
ss.fl But she says it was her own attitude and lack of focus that was the real problem. Her mo
ther was not happy with her grades and when she didn™t get into her first choice school, she realized, fiI had to step up my game and get it. . . . I 
can™t stay right here. I have to . . .  improve. They [other students] can stay here but I have to move on.fl  ECHS is a friendly, peaceful place for Samant
ha. She credits the school with preparing her for the outside world. Taking adult responsibi
lity and the help of the 
teachers and professors fihelps you a lot in life because it sets a positive attitude towards others . . . and it helps you a lot; you can get recommendations.fl Though students were 
warned of possible safety issues with the 216downtown campus, security is good and Samantha 
feels safer here than she would in her neighborhood high school. She has nothing but good things to say about the school.  While her goal is to get stra
ight A grades, Samantha™s 9
th grade GPA at ECHS is just below 90. Her developmental asset survey scores are generally in the good to excellent range, with her total score of 46 in the middle of the good range. Sh
e has particular strengths in the support category (29 of 30) and the family (28) a
nd school (27) contexts. Those three scores, all in the excellent range, are 
borne out by her interview.  Gianna  The only non-Hispanic student among those I in
terviewed (she is Black), Gianna is a 16-year-old 10th grader at HHS in the career magnet progr
am. She is petite and neatly dressed. From 
the beginning she did not hesitate in comfortably answering questions. She speaks clearly, easily and confidently, answering readily and in detail. It seemed as
 though she had anticipated the questions and thought about them ahead of tim
e. Her relaxed but self-possessed manner and 
ready answers were not what I expected given her unusually low DAP scores. Though she continued to defy my DAP-score-based expectat
ions in some ways, there were clues, often 
subtle, that there might be unde
rlying issues to explain at least some of the low scores. 
Gianna has lived in the same part of the city most of her life, so it is very familiar and 
comfortable for her. Three years ago the family moved to a neighborhood where, unlike 
neighborhoods where she lived when she was younger, she feels safe. She has friends she has been in school with since kindergarten. But neither she nor her mother has the kind of 
relationships with neighbors where they might get support or encouragement. Her father™s 
frequent absence affects her more than her c
onfident demeanor indicates. When he was not 
around, she says,  217It was very hard for me to focus in school 
and that just, like, really brought me down. 
And I sometimes wished that I had some s
upport, like more support from him, but I know 
like, I have to do what I have to do and just push through it. I know some kids my age 
don't think that way. And they feel like I just 
can't go on, kind of.  . . . But I know like, I 
have to do what I have to do and just push through it. She speaks in the past tense, but it is apparent from the way she talks about 
it that she is still very 
much affected by her father™s consistent absence.   
Though she attended neighborhood schools through 8th grade, when it came to 9
th grade, Gianna did not consider her assigned high school,
 HHS, because of its large sizeŠthe largest 
high school, by far, in the district. She explains, fiI was just afraid . . . because if I wasn™t in the magnet part of it, I don™t know how I would™ve go
t through it because it™s so massive.fl Further, 
she was concerned that fimost of the schools in th
is area aren™t good, just because of where we 
are.fl She wanted a school with a better envi
ronment, where she could get away from the 
distractions of disruptive students. When considering a 9th grade school, Gianna and her best friend were interested in Tech because fieverything was technology based.fl They
 applied and both were accepted. Gianna plays 
the cello and also applied to th
e very competitive arts magnet sc
hool, but was not accepted there, 
so she enrolled at Tech.  
The reality of technology at Tech did not live up to Gianna™s expectations. In the end she fididn™t like it at all.fl Further, she made few friends at th
e school. Though she describes herself as friendly and outgoing, she says she just fididn™
t have any interest in it.fl The teachers, though, 
fiwere great . . . very nice, very understanding.fl
 One of those teachers talked with her about 
possible alternatives to Tech. When she menti
oned an interest in photography, he suggested the 218HHS photography program and she ultimately applied 
and enrolled there. As with the earlier school decision, Gianna™s mother supported her tr
ansfer to HHS, but fiit was absolutely my 
choice.fl Though she and her best friend went to Tech together, her friend did not change schools with her, but stayed at Tech. Gianna™s DAP scores are unusually low, near
ly all in the low range. Only the family 
context score, in the good range (22), and the constructive use of time category score, in the fair 
range (18), are higher. It is surprising that someone who e
xpresses such a commitment to 
academic achievement would have an extremel
y low score for the commitment to learning 
category. At the same time, her interview respon
ses did not indicate any engagement in learning 
except for photography. It may be that her commitm
ent is to high grades and graduation, but not 
to learning itself.  Marcos 
Outgoing and talkative, Marcos, a stocky 16-year-old 10th grader at HHS, was a bit nervous at the beginning of the interview and fidgets throughout. He talks easily and rapidly, often so rapidly that it is difficult to understand him. In answering questions, Marcos often elaborates beyond what is necessary, seeming to 
want to engage with me. Some answers are 
carefully considered, while others are spontaneous. Three times 
he launches into stories that seem more fantasy than reality. For the most 
part, though, it is apparent that Marcos responds candidly. The stories seem to be attempts to impress me or to make me like himŠand maybe to 
build himself up in his own mind. They add nothi
ng to his more substantive answers, so I consider them in the overall analysis, but do not further analyze them. 
Marcos and his mother speak only Spanish at 
home, but his English 
is virtually accent free. He is not classified as LEP by the Dist
rict. His mother is a soft-spoken woman with 
219minimal English. She is a single mother and stru
ggles to support herself and her son. She has friends who help from time to time, but there are 
no relatives in their lives, leaving this small 
family socially isolated. Marcos helps to ear
n money by finding discarded metal for recycling. 
He pointed out that he wears donated clothing provided by his mother™s friends.  
For Marcos, the ideal future would include being an independent creator of video games. He works with software to help him learn how 
to do that and is working now on an idea for a game. He does not, however, have th
e resources he needs to get very far. Like the other students, he says he wants to graduate from high school an
d college in order to prepare for a career. His desires for future income, however, relate more 
to helping his mother than to establishing his 
own life.  Marcos prepares himself for failure. Though he 
wants the standard path to fisuccess,fl he is not sure he™ll be able, financially, to go to college, and he is not sure that he won™t get fired from a job. His backup plan for both contingencies 
is to have a fitax businessfl with his mother, 
who now does taxes for friends. Marcos™s more ne
gative views of his future and his ability to 
control what happens reflect 
his past experience. In 6th grade, he was fikicked outfl of a private school, then applied for a magnet school for 7
th grade but could not pass the entrance tests. He spent the next two years in his neighborhood middle school.  
For 9th grade, Marcos applied to MBHS becau
se his mother™s friend recommended itŠ
her daughter was a student there. He says, fiIt was one of the best schools there, or so I heard, so I wanted to make her [his mother] proud.fl He al
so applied to the HHS career magnet program, as 
did most of his friends, but c
hose to attend MBHS instead.  Th
e school appealed to the self-described fitechnology guy, fibecause it offered access 
to fia computer and data, then about video 
game programming.fl That part of the program turned
 out to be a disappointment, not at all what 
220he expected.  Marcos consistently expresses a desire for more t
eam projects, more videos, more 
presentations, and less lecture and reading from boring texts. fiIn 
other words,fl he says, fijust let me out of the box.fl  The struggle 
with fithe boxfl of his life, in and out of school, is a constant theme. 
Consistent with his past experience, Marcos spent only a year at MBHS. He missed the 
first day of school for 10th gradeŠmissed the bus, he saysŠand 
was fikicked outfl as a result. He 
gives no other reasons. As before, he transferred to his assigned school, this time HHS. He 
describes mixed feelings over the change: fisad  
. . . for getting kicked out of a good school,fl and 
fiangry about getting kicked out the first day.fl 
He goes on to say, though, that fiIn the meantime I 
was a happy kid,fl because his girlfriend and other friends from 8
th grade are there. 
Marcos differs from the other students interv
iewed in that he is eligible for special 
education services. But he requires minimal se
rvices, indicating that he is essentially mainstreamed in regular classes. During the in
terview, Marcos™s disa
bility was not readily 
apparent, though his story-telling and desire to engage with me on 
a more personal level could be indicators. Even though he has issu
es (i.e. special ed/autism), th
at certainly affect his school choices and behavior, Marcos™s interests and attitudes are much like those of many teenage boys, 
including many I have known.  Though most of his DAP scores are in the fair 
range, the majority of 
those are within one or two points of the good range. Marcos™s lowest scores are in the school and community contexts and the support and empowerment categor
ies. Other than the community score, these low scores certainly reflect his years of struggling to find his 
place in school. Other than the 
family context, his highest scores, all in the 
good range, are in the personal context and in the positive values and positive identity categories. Ye
t these personal strengths do not seem to help 
221him in navigating the education 
system. It may be that he exaggerated in answering these 
questions or it may be that his own values and 
identity are in conflict with the values and 
expectations of the institutions he has experienced.    222  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  REFERENCES   223REFERENCES    Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school, and 
community. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. 
Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What we have learned. San Francisco: WestEd. 
Benson, P. L., & Scales, P. C. (2009). The definition and preliminary measurement of thriving in 
adolescence. 
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 85-104.  Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma Jr, A. (2006). Positive youth 
development: Theory, research, and applications. 
Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.). Volume 1: Theoretical models of human development
. New York: John Wiley & 
Sons. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Leffert, N., & Roehlkepartain, E. C. (1999). 
A fragile foundation: The state of developmental assets among American youth
. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Roehlkep
artain, E. C., & Leffert, N. (2011). A fragile foundation: The state of developmental assets among American youth
 (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. 
Bifulco, R. (2012). Can nonexperimental estimates replicat
e estimates based on random 
assignment in evaluations of school
 choice? A within-study comparison. 
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(3), 729-751. doi: 10.1002/pam.21637 
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and 
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005a). The bioecological theory of human development (2001). In U. 
Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on 
human development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005b). Making human beings human : Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 224Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005c). The social ecology of human development: A retrospective 
conclusion (1973). In U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Making human beings human: 
Bioecological perspectives on human development
. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In 
R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.). Volume 1: Theoretical 
models of human development
. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 
Donohue, W. A. (2002). The Community Asset 
Development for Youth (CADY Strategy): A 
tool for violence, bullying, and substance abuse prevention.  Retrieved from 
http://www.cj.msu.edu/~outreach
/safe_schools/cd_apr2003/cady.PDF Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). 
Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy 
Press, National Research Council. Farrington, C. A., Roericck, M., Allensworth, E. M., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., 
& Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolesce
nts to become learners. The role of 
noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical l
iterature review.  Chicago: University of ChicagoConsortium on 
Chicago School Research. Retrieved from 
http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/f
iles/publications/Noncognitive%20Report.pdf 
Frank, K. A. (2014). KonFound-it! Retrieved from 
https://www.msu.edu/~kenfrank/research.htm#causal 
Frank, K. A., Maroulis, S. J., Duong, M. Q., & Kelcey, B. M. (2013). What would it take to 
change an inference?: Using Rubin™s causal 
model to interpret th
e robustness of causal inferences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(4), 437-460. doi: 10.3102/0162373713493129 Gutman, L. M., Sameroff, A. J., & Eccles, J. 
S. (2002). The academic achievement of African 
American students during early adolescence: An
 examination of multiple risk, promotive, 
and protective factors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30
(3), 367-399.  Hanson, T. L., Austin, G., & Lee-Bayha, J. (2004). How are student health risks & resilience related to the academic progress of
 schools? San Francisco: WestEd. 
Hirsch, B. J., Hedges, L. V., Stawicki, J. A., & Mekinda, M. A. (2011). After-school programs 
for high school students: An evaluation of After School Matters. Northwestern 
University. Retrieved from h
ttp://www.sesp.northwestern.edu 225Keith, J. G., Huber, M. Q., Griffin, A., & Villarruel, F. A. (n.d.). Building best lives: Profiles of 24,000 Michigan youth from 2 asset approach
es. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. 
Leffert, N., Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Sharma, A. R., Drake, D. R., & Blyth, D. A. (1998). 
Developmental assets: Measurement and pred
iction of risk behaviors among adolescents. 
Applied Developmental Science, 2(4), 209-230. doi: 10.1207/s1532480xads0204_4 Lerner, R. M. (2006). Developmental science, developmenta
l systems, and contemporary 
theories of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), 
Handbook of child psychology (6th Ed). Volume 1: Theoretical models of human development
 (6th ed., Vol. 1). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 
Lerner, R. M., & Benson, P. L. (Eds.). (2003). Developmental assets and asset-building 
communities: Implications for research, policy, and practice
. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. 
Lerner, R. M., Brentano, C., Dowling, E. 
M., & Anderson, P. M. (2002). Positive youth 
development: thriving as the basi
s of personhood and civil society. New Directions for Youth Development (95), 11-33.  Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (2013). The positive development of youth: Comprehensive 
findings from the 4-H study of positive youth development: Institute for Applied 
Research in Youth Development, Tufts University. 
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., The
okas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., . . . Ma, L. (2005). Positive youth development, partic
ipation in community youth development 
programs, and community contributions of 
fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the 
first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. 
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17.  Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & Phelps, E. (2009). Waves of the future: The first five years of the 
4-H study of positive youth development. In
stitute for Applied Research in Youth 
Development, Tufts University Retrieve
d from www.4-h.org/about/youth-development-
research/positive-youth-development-study/ 
 
Lerner, R. M., von Eye, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lewin-Bizan, S. (2009). Exploring the foundations and functions of adolescent thriving 
within the 4-H Study of Positive Youth 
Development: A view of the issues. 
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 567-570.  226Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71
(3), 543-562. doi: 10.10170S0954579405050121 Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: 
Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.227 Oman, R. F., Vesely, S. K., Mcleroy, K. R
., Harris-Wyatt, V., Aspy, C. B., Rodine, S., & 
Marshall, L. (2002). Reliability and validity of the Youth Asset Survey (YAS). 
Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(3), 247-255.  Oman, R. F., Vesely, S. K., Tolma, E. L., Aspy, 
C. B., & Marshall, L. D. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Youth Asset Survey: An update. American Journal of Health Promotion, 25(1), 13-24. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.081009-QUAN-242  
Pittman, K. J., Irby, M., Tolman, J., & Yohale
m, N. (2003). Preventing problems, promoting 
development, encouraging engagement. 
 Washington, D.C.: The Forum for Youth 
Investment, Impact Strategies, Inc.
 Retrieved from www.forumfyi.org Roth, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). What do adolescents need for healthy development: 
Implications for youth policy. 
Social Policy Report, 14(2).  
Roth, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers 
from research and practice. 
Applied Developmental Science, 7
(2), 94-111. doi: 10.1207/S1532480XADS0702_6 Roth, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004). What do adolescents need for healthy development?: 
Implications for youth policy. In 
M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 358): Worth Publishers. Sabatelli, R. M., & Anderson, S. A. (2005). Assessing outcomes in child and youth programs: A 
practical handbook. University of Connecticut. Retrieved from 
http://www.familystudies.uconn.edu/
centers/applied/CARHDhandbook.pdf Scales, P. C. (2011a). Youth developmental a
ssets in global perspective: Results from international adaptations of the Developmental Assets Profile. 
Child Indicators Research, 1-27.  227Scales, P. C. (2011b). Youth developmental as
sets in global perspective: Results from international adaptations of the Developmental Assets Profile. 
Child Indicators Research. doi: 10.1007/s12187-011-9112-8 Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. A. (2000). Contribution of developmental 
assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 
4(1), 27-46.  Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Sesma Jr, A., & van Dulmen, M. (2006). The 
role of developmental assets in predicti
ng academic achievement: A longitudinal study. 
Journal of adolescence, 29(5), 691-708. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.09.001 Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (2004). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research 
on adolescent development (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Schmidt, J. A., & Padilla, B. (2003). Self-esteem 
and family challenge: An investigation of their 
effects on achievement. 
Journal of youth and adolescence, 32(1), 37-46.  Search Institute. (2005). Developmental assets 
profile: User manual
. Minneapolis, MN: Author. Search Institute. (2006). 40 developmental assets
 for adolescence (ages 12-18). Minneapolis, MN: Author. Search Institute. (2014). User guide for the Developmental Assets Profile
   Retrieved from 
http://www.search-institute.org/sites/default/files/a/Fluid%20DAP%20User%20Guide-1-
2014.pdf  Shadish, W. R., Clark, M. H., & Steiner, P. 
M. (2008). Can nonrandomized experiments yield 
accurate answers? A randomized experiment comparing random and nonrandom 

assignments. 
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(484), 1334-1344. doi: 10.1198/016214508000000733 Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (Eds.). (2008). 
Research methods in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Vargas, B. (2010). Educational success in the face of adversity as measured by high school graduation. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest. 228Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1998). 
Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth (3rd ed.). New York: Adams Bannister Cox. 
Wilson-Ahlstrom, A., Yohalem, N., DuBois, D., Ad
ler, P. J., & Hillaker, B. (2014) From soft 
skills to hard data: Measuring youth program outcomes. The Forum for Youth 
Investment. 
Zaniewski, A. (2015, November 26). DPS faci
ng surge of midyear teacher departures,
 Detroit Free Press. Retrieved from http://on.freep.com/1HrdL3Y